Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Featured article candidates)
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the coordinators may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may want to create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use emboldened subheadings with semicolons, as these create accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.



Sardines (Inside No. 9)[edit]

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sardines" is a free-standing, half-hour story which introduces 12 characters (played by 12 actors familiar to British viewers) and manages to cover the themes of murder, incest, sexual abuse, vengeance and adultery. Most of the episode takes place inside a wardrobe. It's a comedy, but I'm not sure the humour would be everyone's cup of tea- you can see clips here and here. The article was promoted to GA last year, and more recently formed part of a good topic. The second series of Inside No. 9 will be broadcast this year, and, while I'm working on articles for the second series, I'd like to see if I can push some of the articles about the first series to FA level. I look forward to your comments! This will probably be a WikiCup nomination. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In the interest of getting something together for Sonic's 25th anniversary a year and a half from now, I've brought what was a C-class article (and failed as a GAN by someone before I showed up) to GA and gotten a copyedit done, and here's the final step. One of perhaps only a single-digit number of games in its series still held in high esteem by critics, Sonic 1 is also notable in retrospect for some unusual design choices that would quickly be changed in later games, such as a very small cast of characters (don't worry, Espio, Chip, Vanilla, and Shade, we still love you), the lack of the famous "spin dash" move, the presence of only six Chaos Emeralds, and generally slower, somewhat cramped level design, more in the vein of a traditional platformer. It's not one of my favorites, but it's a darling of early-'90s pop-culture nostalgiacs and jaded, sneering game journalists and as such deserves to be written about to the highest standard possible. Thanks for your attention. Tezero (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the first king of Hungary who is also venerated as a holy king by both the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Churches. This is the second FAC of the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Girl Pat (1935 trawler)[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This decidedly quirky, slightly mysterious maritime adventure of 1936 created enormous public interest and press attention at the time, well out of proportion to its apparent significance. It has since been ignored by almost all the social historians of the period. Was there something unrevealed behind it? After reading a passing reference to the affair in Ronald Blythe's The Age of Illusion, I was intrigued, so I researched the story and here it is. You'd call it a nine days' wonder, except that it lasted more like nine months. The article has been polished by some helpful peer reviewers, and is hopefully ready for consideration here. All views welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – I enjoyed this article extravagantly. On occasion, rereading something for FAC after one has fairly recently peer reviewed it can be a bit of a chore. Not this time! The lighter side of Wikipedia, at its finest. A delectable change from shipping disasters, mad racists, drug-doomed actors, and modern slavery (though fine articles all, by fine editors). This jeu d'esprit is well balanced, comprehensive, widely sourced and referenced, cunningly illustrated and an unalloyed delight to read. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 17:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by the Doctor[edit]

  • "The Girl Pat was a small fishing trawler from the Lincolnshire port of Grimsby" -was it made in Grimsby or was it just based at the port, it's not clear to me. I don't think I can recall a boat referred to as coming from a place like that.
  • "In May 1936 Orsborne, with a crew of four and his brother James as a supernumerary, took the vessel out on what the owners authorised as a routine North Sea fishing trip. However, after leaving port Orsborne informed the crew that they would be going on an extended cruise in more southerly waters. Nothing more was heard of them until mid-May" -here it's unclear the duration of the trip, there's no date mentioned with May and nothing on how long they were actually away for, If you were precise with the date of departure then the reader would be able to gauge that it was a week or two or more or whatever.
  • "Îles du Salut off the South American coast". -that's a huge area of possible scope as most will not be familiar with those islands, perhaps add off the coast of French Guiana.
  • Why are some countries linked but not others? Is Bahamas really worth linking more than Senegal? I'd be consistent and not link countries. There's no link of Bermuda in the main body in the background section.
  • "In court, George Orsborne based his defence " -when was this? - needs some indication of timeline here I think.
  • Do you think a major city like Liverpool is worth linking?
  • "During the following ten years, his career, he " -the "his" and "he" so closely together here I find a little jarring
  • Do we know what month the trawler was completed? Is there nothing further to be said technically about it? What about it's features and anchorage?
  • I notice in the lede you initially refer to the vessel as The Girlpat using the definite article, but throughout you just refer to it as Girlpat. Which is preferable here?
  • "where he would get rid of Jefferson, who was not included in his further plans." -seems a bit vague, why was this? The way it is worded seems as if he was desperate to get him off of the boat and makes me curious!
  • English Channel not linked yet the North Sea and the Channel Islands are?
  • "Orsborne ordered changes to the boat's appearance: the bowsprit was altered, and the fishing registration number on the side of the hull was blacked out. " -where was this conducted?
  • Now here you refer to the port as the "small northern Spanish port" which I think reads well, but earlier you call it the "north Spanish", can you change the earlier example to "small northern Spanish port" too.
  • Some indication of where the Savage Islands would be good here, you could add something like "nearly midway between Madeira and the Canary Islands", although in looking in fairness you do give an indication in the next sentence, although it doesn't indicate where 170 miles is in relation to the Canary's which might be useful for reference.
  • "This small uninhabited archipelago, roughly 170 nautical miles (310 km) south of Madeira, had long been associated with stories of pirates' buried treasure; news that Girl Pat had been seen there gave rise to press speculation that she was engaged on a hunt for treasure.[28][29] Lloyd's of London sent a representative to Las Palmas, to investigate the sighting;[30] meanwhile Girl Pat made an unobserved call at Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where she was repainted.[31]" -The semicolon seems heavy here, you probably disagree, but I think one could be avoided with a little tweaking.
  • "meanwhile Girl Pat made an unobserved call at Tenerife in the Canary Islands, where she was repainted." -do we have a date here?
  • Mauretania is the incorrect modern English spelling I believe, we should probably use the official English name of Mauritania here with an i.
  • I'd delink the Bahamas
  • " the steamer Arakaka" -what nationality was this? You'd think Japanese or Polynesia with a name like that! Some indication might be useful
  • I believe there's a few "Daily Worker" papers, you might add "New York" before it for some indication it's American.
  • Shouldn't " "Kia-ora" be in italics like the other ship names?
  • "A Hull man" -used in an article on shipping this might confuse some people as to which hull you mean! A local man from Hull should clear that one, admittedly my initial reaction was a boat technician!
  • Do we have a link for Fugitive Offenders Act?
  • " once the Governor's formal approval" -surely there's a name of the actual Governor of French Guiana at the time which could be directly mentioned here?
  • "The brothers each entered not guilty pleas" ="The brothers pleaded not guilty"
  • "The trial began on 19 October 1936." -you should probably mention at the Old Bailey here despite the header.
  • "Profitable activities such as gun-running and smuggling were mentioned" -who mentioned them? Did Maclean specifically state his suspicions that Orsborne was involved with it? Can you clarify?
  • "being hazarded" -seems a tad awkward
  • "After the outbreak of war in September 1939 she was requisitioned by the Admiralty for naval use; she is" -repetition with "she was" and "she is" here as well as a conflict in tense.
  • Not sure if is also customary to use a weight conversion for 60-ton, same with the weight of the ship mentioned earlier to kilograms for the Americans among us. I know a lot of people like to have a metric indication of weight, just nit-picking of course :-).

Did you link Portsmouth earlier like Southampton? The last example of Portsmouth I saw wasn't linked but I might have missed an earlier one.

That's all, a thoroughly enjoyable adventure story, I think I need a rest now! My only significant criticism I suppose might be that there's very little technical information about the vessel itself. I understand that it's the story which is being covered here more than the actual boat itself, but you would normally expect a section covering its technical aspects and performance. What was its capacity in fish hauls? What equipment did it possess etc? If only the very basic figures exist though then of course there's not much you can do about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

This is an excellent, informative article which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. I have some points in addition to some of Dr. Blofeld's commentary above, with which I mostly agree. I think it especially important that some technical specifications be given if they are available, even if only as a few sentences.

  • Capture, detention and arrest: This quote: "Like some coursing greyhound the faster Government ship stuck to the tail of the fleeing suspect which, harelike, doubled back on her course to dodge her pursuer" would be improved by giving the source in the body of the article.
  • Capture, detention and arrest: "A Hull man thought the adventure demonstrated "the spirit of Drake", and called for a public subscription to meet the crew's debts and expenses." I'm not sure what "Hull man" means here. Is it a nautical term, or does it refer to a man working at the Hull Daily Mail? If it's the latter, then "Hull" should probably be italicized as part of the name of the paper, or preferably (to me), the entire name of the paper should be given for its use. In the next sentence, the full name of the paper is given, so maybe just flip those two, unless "Hull man" is indeed a nautical term. I know very little about boats and boating, so apologies for my ignorance.
  • In Georgetown: "...and bail was again refused." I didn't see any previous reference to bail being denied the first time.
  • Bow Street, London: "The defence counsel did not answer the detailed aspects of the prosecution's case, but stated that at the forthcoming trial "very serious allegations" would be made against certain of the prosecution witnesses." I don't understand "would be made against certain of the prosecution witnesses." Is this a typo, or a remnant of a previous revision?
  • Old Bailey: "It was put to Moore that he had instructed George Orsborne not to go fishing, but to "lose" the vessel..." Perhaps this could be reworded for the benefit of people who might not realize that the quotation marks around "lose" are meant to imply a euphemistic intent, such as "...not to go fishing, but to purposefully "lose" the vessel..."
  • Aftermath: "...that Harris drank up his share of the crew's newspaper money..." Does this refer to alcoholism? If so, I would suggest rewording it to make that a bit clearer and avoid what is, in my opinion, an overly-euphemistic phrase.
  • Aftermath: This section references the invasion of Singapore as taking place in 1941, but wasn't it actually early in 1942? Malaya was invaded late in 1941, but Singapore wasn't invaded until the next year, as far as I know. Does it refer to something distinct from the Battle of Singapore?

That's all from me. As stated by myself and others, this is a very interesting article and a great read.-RHM22 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - excellent article and a great read. - SchroCat (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I had my say at the peer review. A fine and strange tale.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Llywrch[edit]

I'm not going to address whether I think this should be considered a pass or fail for FAC. But I will make a few comments here:

  • I made one minor edit to remove "that" from the section "Orsborne's alternative account". I think this better transitions into the account of the contents of Orsborne's memoirs which are (properly) in the present tense.
  • One change I considered, & am recommending here, is to mention the title in this section. There is an ambiguity in the third paragraph of the next section "Aftermath" in the sentence "Of the other Girl Pat crew, Orsborne mentions in his memoirs that Stephens went straight back to sea after the adventure, that Harris drank up his share of the crew's newspaper money, and that "Fletcher" (Stone) emigrated to Australia" -- since the previous sentence states George Orsborne died, I thought "Orsborne" here might refer to the brother James, & wondered why this was the first time I had heard of this book. Changing this sentence to read "Of the other Girl Pat crew, in his Master of the Girl Pat Orsborne mentions etc."
  • Like the evil good Doctor pointed out above, the mention of the Fugitive Offenders Act left me wanting more information. Not being versed in British maritime law, I don't know what this means. Obviously Orsborne stole a sailing craft; this could be considered piracy -- although due to how Orsborne gained control of the vessel & its value, another portion of the British criminal code might better apply. In short, if this were a FA, I'd expect some discussion why the Fugitive Offenders Act was selected in charging Orsborne.
  • As I wrote in the peer review, I'm missing some explanation for this joy-ride. Then again, at this time we may never understand Orsborne's motivation. As an example, there's Trevor-Roper's book on Sir Edmund Backhouse, which contains enough details about this eccentric to allow the reader to sense why Backhouse habitually indulged in numerous fabulations.

I could probably say more, but my off-wiki life has me pressed for time. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Casino Royale (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This was Ian Fleming's first stab at novel writing, undertaken during his annual two-month holiday in Jamaica (the lucky so-and-so) to kill time before his wedding. It's the novel that led to a 46 other Bond books by Fleming and others, a commercially successful film series, and adaptations of the character for television, radio, comic strip, video games, after shave, mobile phones, toys, etc, etc. For all that, it's a decent spy story by a first-time author; to paraphrase Fleming's description of his work, it may not be Literature with a capital L, but it is a 'thriller designed to be read as literature'. This article has benefitted from an informal PR from a high-quality cast list, following a recent re-write of a 2011 GA. All comments and thoughts welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – As one of the informal peer reviewers (I took my jacket and tie off) I have found it no hardship at all to revisit this article for FAC. It can't have been easy to get the images, and the page is as well illustrated as I can imagine possible. The prose is a pleasure to read, the coverage comprehensive, the text well balanced and the research wide and thoroughly documented. Plainly meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 12:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Many thanks, as always, for your excellent comments at PR and here. They are appreciated, as they always are. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks in good nick. Some minor points:

  • Why "continuation" in quotes?
  • "The book was given broadly positive reviews by critics at the time and sold out in less than a month in the UK, although US sales upon release a year later were much slower." I think it might be better to mention the date of release here rather than in the next paragraph.
  • Yep - all done now. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Foreign Manager in the Kemsley newspaper group," -is the capitalisation official here? No article on Kemsley?
  • A Google Books search shows mixed results; I've left them in, as otherwise he could be a non-English manager, if you want to deliberately misread it! Nothing on Kelmsey. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any background information which might be directly related to his writing, had he expressed a previous interest in writing, or did he just begin with no experience? Later on you mention his brother being a writer which comes as a surprise. Something on the family's writing background might be good at an earlier stage here.
  • No other background on his writing, and the first he mentioned it was to do with wanting to do a spy book. I mulled about the family point, and if was the Fleming article I would have brought it up earlier, but as it's about the background to CR, I'm not sure it's as relevant. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you don't want to go into too much anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link Estoril the town itself.
  • I thought about that, but as the casino was the focus of the activity, I thought tat was the best one to go with. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you need to link Bulgarians?
  • Nope! Now gone - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Casino Royale was written shortly after, " -not exactly really, seven years later, shortly after you'd think 1946-8 or something, perhaps reword.
  • shortly now struck. - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you think it might read better without the fairly short sections or is it essential for clarity?
  • Again something I've mulled over, and I'm still not sure which way to go on this. Perhaps we can leave it as is, until someone else agrees with you, and we can spin it at that point? - SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure myself, I see the use in the sub section titles as they clearly define the themes, but they are relatively short, that was all I was saying!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Concluding, Ross thought that... ", maybe just "He concluded that the book was both "exciting and extremely civilized".
  • The long sentence is rather long!

Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • If you mean The Long Goodbye, then I've re-worked the couple of sentences around it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Doc - all sorted, I hope! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Great job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include accessdates for online newspapers
  • FN88: the bank is a publisher, not a work
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations
  • All ddone, except those which are obvious from the title (Manchester University Press, etc), which I think is in line with the MoS: please let me know if consistency is preferrable, and I'l fill inthese off couple of gaps too. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Griswold's work is classed as an approved reference book by Ian Fleming Publications, the family company of Ian Fleming and holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works. The work has been accepted by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion as a serious source and has been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009. The question was also raised Reliable sources noticeboard, who are happy enough, given the background). – SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • All done, thanks Nikkimaria. Happy to talk further on the Griswold point, if you think there is still an issue with it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Bramshill House[edit]

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important Jacobean country houses in England. The current house was built in the early 17th century by Baron Edward la Zouche of Harringworth, but was partly destroyed by fire a few years later and subsequently redeveloped. The Italian Renaissance, which became popular in England during the late 16th century, is evident in its design. Some of the interior tapestries are quite remarkable pieces. It became a Grade I listed building in 1952, after which it became a police college.

This underwent vigorous research a while back, involving myself, Yngvadottir and Drmies, and Eric Corbett helped copyedit it up to beyond GA standard. It's been sitting for a while but I've recently checked to see if it is all there and it really appears to be very comprehensive. Thanks to a pretty decent peer review it has been further improved to the point I believe it is now ready to be nominated. Cheers.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – as one of the pretty decent peer reviewers I thought this article of FA standard then, and think so now. Meets all prose criteria, in my my view, and though I don't generally comment on images, being daunted by WP's arcane rules, the article is most pleasing to the eye. Seems to me to tick every box for FA. Tim riley talk 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim for some excellent comments during the review and your support! Yes some of the external images are very good but unfortunately I couldn't get hold of free interior images to show off the wonderful tapestries. I did contact the college. The black and white ones in the commons I checked and aren't free.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, without any reservations. Eric Corbett 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Eric for your support and the copyediting work you did at an earlier stage which has really paid off in getting to FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Well researched article about an important building.--Ipigott (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Ipigott for your support and recent copyedits!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Aa77zz[edit]

Ref 77 "Borrell & Cashinella 1975" is not in the Bibliography. A google search finds Crime in Britain Today which seems a strange source for the area of the lake. Aa77zz (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I accidentally removed it during the peer review earlier today. I've restored it, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support per my peer review of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Wehwalt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, as per my peer review. Excellent article; well done to all concerned - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated Schro, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Floor plans could be slightly larger
  • File:11thLordZouche.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Ground_floor_Bramshill_House.jpg needs US PD tag, as does File:First_Floor_Bramshill_House.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

All done, cheers Nikkimaria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Kehl (1796–97)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Siege of Kehl from 1796–1797. This siege, which the Austrians concluded successfully, ended the Rhine Campaign of 1796, part of the War of the First Coalition. The article has been through GA and A class review in the Military History Project. It seems to meet all the criterion and I would appreciate your comments. I forgot to say, also, that I've included the alt text; as of today, all the links are good; there is one dab link to the dab page for the other battles at same location. And as of today also there were no dupes. auntieruth (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Rhein-Karte.png: what is the source of the data represented by this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand the question. What is the source the artist used to make the map? IDK. But I have compared it to other maps of the Rhine and it matches them. Do you want those sources? auntieruth (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is being nominated to join the relatively short tradition of other Sounders winning Open Cups ('09, '10, and '11. It should meet or exceed the FA standards set by other articles seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase.

As the primary author, my usual shortfall is general copy editing. I feel that any issues can be addressed in a timely manner. Also, I used Sounder At Heart as a source in a few instances. The sources from that site relied on writers who have press badges and not general user generated content. Please let me know if any improvement is needed to reach FA and I will be on it immediately. Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi—can you state whether this is a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I am participating in the Wikicup.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia: This does need a good copyedit. Examples of issues:

  • “the The Cup”
  • Carlos Valdés (footballer)|Carlos Valdes]]”
  • “Pappa, who had just returned from international duty with the Guatemala,”
  • “There first big chance came”,
  • ”Casey received a yellow card at the 57th minute an was later replaced”
  • ”were able to effectively counter Philadelphia's attempts attack in the second half”
  • ”While being praised as good tactics by one Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins due to a muscle strain.”
    • This now reads "While being praised as good tactics by a Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins was due to a muscle strain" which brings up some new issues:
      • Presumably the intent is that Schmid was being praised for good tactics (not as good tactics), and that Martins was not started due to a muscle strain (not the decision...was due to a muscle strain).
      • The relationship between the two halves of the sentence is not immediately clear. A quote from Liviu Bird clarifies what Martins not starting has to do with good tactics—but the quote is back in the Extra time section. Suggest moving it from Extra time to Post-match for better context; the quote is technically postgame commentary anyway.
That is better. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ”THe Sounders received”
  • Image captions should not end with a full stop unless the caption forms a complete sentence (and none of the current captions does).

This is not an exhaustive list; someone needs to go through from top to bottom for grammar, spelling, etc. That being said, though, the copyedit that’s needed here is not a particularly intensive one, since there is not a lot of complicated language or nuance in this sort of article, so it should be pretty fast and easy once you find someone to do it. Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The GA reviewer did a good job then I added a few lines (most are the ones you mentioned). Nothing like a good 'ol FAC to remind me that I suck at typing. All mentioned are fixed. Also, I removed the periods from the captions. I tend to agree with you but have added them in articles I work on due to the insistence of other reviews at GA and FA. Can you point me to something in the MoS for future discussions?Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
RE the image caption punctuation question, you can refer people to these:
MOS:FULLSTOP: "Sentence fragments in captions or lists should in most cases not end with a period."
MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."
This part of MOS is fairly longstanding policy; off the top of my head, I'd say it's been in force since at least 2008, so reviewers should be familiar with it. People do tend to trip up over that last bit concerning multiple sentences/fragments, though. Maralia (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Edward II of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Edward II, an ill-fated English monarch who remains a famous figure in modern films, plays and art. The article reflects the current academic scholarship on Edward, and has been through Good and A Class reviews; I believe that it also meets the criteria for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class ... and I noticed that I missed some misspellings, so take this support with a grain of salt. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose I really enjoyed reading this article, both in terms of general interest and the prose itself. I'm finishing A Distant Mirror, which dovetails nicely into this article. But there are minor prose issues, a little missing info, and one very confusing passage. I'm opposing only on that last one, the rest are merely comments.
    • "to help secure peace with France, but war broke out"... what war?
  • I've added an explanation. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation", do we know what sort of engine?
  • I don't think so, but will check further. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "he was knighted in a ceremony at Westminster Abbey", this confuses me. Was it not the case that a knight was a rung in the feudal ladder that he would have been part of by birthright? Is this knighting not redundant? I may just misunderstand the role of knighthood, but if that's the case I suspect I'm not alone and little expansion here would help.
  • Knighting ceremonies were a major event in the medieval period; I've added a bit to the article on knights, and wikilinked to that. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "before then permanently exiling Gaveston", "then" is redundant and reads oddly to my eyes.
    • "same way that it might do in the 21st century", ditto for "do".
    • "Edward gave Isabella a psalter as a wedding gift", tricky link in here, which I always get annoyed at - I wanted to know what a psalter was, not the details of this particular one. Suggest something along the lines of "Edward gave Isabella a psalter, now known as the Isabella Psalter, as a wedding gift"
    • "Gaveston that he had stolen royal funds and had purloined Isabella's wedding presents", simply "stolen royal funds and Isabella's wedding presents". "purloined" is not a common term, and given the context it seems to suggest it means something different than stolen, which it doesn't.
  • Purloin isn't quite the same as stolen; it carries meaning of misappropriation, which is a wider concept than simple theft. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, under threat of excommunication should he return, where he would be given estates to support himself". This is a confusing statement, and I believe it should be broken into two sentences. But which is it... "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, where he would be given estates to support himself. He was threatened with excommunication should he return." OR "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, and was threatened with excommunication should he return. However, Edward said he would be given estates to support himself if he did."
  • Simplified a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • " but which offered to grant Edward", remove "which"?
    • "The Pope agreed to annul Gaveston's sentence of excommunication"... Ok here's the item I think needs to be addressed one way or the other. The statement above suggests this was threatened, but not carried out ("instead sent Gaveston to Dublin") seems to be at odds with the statement only a few lines above, which say it was threatened but never carried out. The next mention of the topic is later in the article and appears unrelated? This is the only problem I think needs to be corrected.
  • I've tweaked the wording - see if it makes more sense now. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley, and Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders", suggest splitting in two, "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley. Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders"
  • I've gone for a semi-colon, see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • stopping at Famine and criticism for now, getting on a plane back to the GWN.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Maury, thanks for this. I'll get on and action tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I should be able to dig into the content and sourcing on this over the weekend, I hope. Hold this spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdyth. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, all finished. It's a great article BTW! Only two last items and they're minor:
    • "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may have been hastened by depression following his imprisonment." - is this anything more than idle speculation? I suspect not, and if that is the case, I'd recommend simply removing this statement.It doesn't really add anything to the content unless we its something that is widely commented on and argued in historical circles, at which point that is the notable point. It doesn't appear to be that, though.
  • It's an argument put forward by one of his two major biographers, so I think it's worth keeping in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The image in the Battle of Boroughbridge appears to show the opening dispositions of the forces? In any event, it conveys very little information to the reader. I poked about a bit looking for something more suitable but failed. I'll keep looking. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Battle-of-Boroughbridge-en.jpg: what is the source of the information presented in this map?
  • File:Philippe4_eduard2_ludvikNavarra.jpg: source link is dead, and life+70 is redundant to life+100
  • The jewellery is PD, but we should say so explicitly
  • File:Seal_of_Edward_II-2.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Oriel_College_Charter.jpg: the uploader is not the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't find the source of the information in the Boroughbridge image on the file; will check further.
  • Original sources of the Phillip4 file has now been given (the Bibliotheque de Nationale archives)
  • PD element of jewellery given, plus right of panorama tag added
  • Seal's US PD tage added
  • Oriel charter tag corrected.
  • Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oliver Evans[edit]

Nominator(s): Unus Multorum (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

A super interesting article written by me that attracted not much commentary last time, but I promise for those willing to read a roller-coaster ride through the life of an eccentric and today little-known Delaware engineer who invented the automated flour mill, the high-pressure steam engine and disputably the first auto-mobile in America. Unus Multorum (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Boat names should generally be italicized
  • captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Oliver_Evans_Signature.svg: what is the copyright status of the original signature? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Keen Johnson[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is another article in the Kentucky governors topic I have been trying to improve off and on for the last several years. It has been a while since I actively worked on the article, but I just read back over it and believe it is in pretty good shape. I also still have access to the relevant sources. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
  • Why include title in short cite for Hay but not Ogden?
  • Don't need accessdates for GBooks
  • University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky?
  • Publisher for Fraas? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Uncle David[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an experimental independent film produced in Britain in 2010. Engaging with LGBT themes, it stars the performance artist David Hoyle and includes a soundtrack featuring Boy George. A GA since May 2013, it has gone through FAC three times, each time failing due to a lack of interest, perhaps as a result of its niche and controversial subject matter. Fourth time lucky ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I'm still satisfied with this article, 4 nominations in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • See 3rd nomination, agree with all points, fair-use OK.
  • 2 additional images since last nomination, CC or released into PD with sufficient info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

One Son[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the twelfth episode of the sixth season of the American sci-fi series The X-Files. It features the end of the long-running arc about the shadowy Syndicate, and was quite an important episode for the series. This article was promoted to GA in 2010 (, and since my first edit back in 2011, it has substantially been revised, expanded, and reorganized ([1]). Furthermore, it has been copy-edited by Beth.Snyder6 ([2]), JudyCS ([3]), and I've made sure to go through it every now and then and clean up anything that I think is awkward. I think it looks quite good, and I believe it is ready for the next step.--20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Gen. Quon (Talk)

Children of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the articles on Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and following in the footsteps of Secret of Mana from this past Fall I'm going to try to get it through FAC. As a Nintendo DS game, and as a lackluster part of a three-game series, it hasn't gotten as much retrospective attention by critics as other games, but I think this is a solid little article—hopefully reviewers won't find much objectionable about it. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Review by Tezero[edit]

Looks interesting; maybe I've got another one for the large pile of JRPGs I still need to play. Reminds me of the Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles games and the Digimon RPGs. Anyway, a review I've promised in exchange for my billionth Sonic GAN, so here I go:

  • "Each of the character options have different numerical attributes, representing their different skills with weapons or magic" - could you give an example of how this might manifest? Also, I don't know the class system or the available classes yet - is it similar to the one in Final Fantasy III or something?
  • Can you go back to dungeon floors you've already been to?
  • "where the boss monster lies" - is the boss always a "monster"? Is it always the same monster? If not, what monsters can it be?
  • "the number of floors can increase" - to a set number? Are the dungeon floors randomly generated?
  • "bow & arrow" - why the ampersand?
  • "wield one or two weapons at a time" - perhaps not, but is there any reason you'd only want to wield one? Is it like the long-held (though, IIRC, untrue) idea that in Pokémon you only get STAB (an attack boost from using an attack of your Pokémon's type) if your Pokémon is single-typed? Also, can you switch between the two at will? Must they recharge? Can you perform a "generic", non-weapon attack?
  • Overall, some parts of Gameplay seem a bit vague - remember, you can cite the manual, in-game text, or - as a last resort - even the game itself if you need to include some extra details for a complete understanding of the gameplay.
  • "Setting" section - consider adding "and characters" or changing to "Premise"
  • Didn't notice anything objectionable in Story, so I'll leave off there.

Tezero (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

I probably don't have time to do a review—honestly, I didn't even plan to comment. However, while doing a little drive-by copyediting on the lead, I noticed that at least one statement is not backed up by its source. See here:

"It was designed by series creator Koichi Ishii, directed by Yoshiki Ito, and produced by Takashi Orikata and Katsuji Aoyama."

I clicked on source 10 and found no mention of Ito, Orikata or Aoyama. I'm sure this is an oversight caused by over-familiarity with the source material (I regularly made the same mistake on the Looking Glass articles), but you should definitely do a run-through to eliminate any improperly sourced passages. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This article covers controversial negotiations between the German forces in Yugoslavia and senior members of Tito's Partisans in March 1943 that went beyond prisoner swaps and drew the ire of the Comintern. It recently passed Milhist A-Class review and I consider it is very close to or meets the FA criteria. Suggestions for improvements will be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

LIM-49 Nike Zeus[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the US's first concerted effort to build and deploy an anti-ballistic missile system. It faced enormous hurdles as the nature of the ICBM threat changed more rapidly than it could be developed. By the time it entered final testing in 1962, it was clear the system was essentially useless.

The missile is interesting, but the overarching story is even more interesting. While researching the article, I came across formerly secret documents discussing the effectiveness of the Zeus system. Lacking Zeus, they predicted that the Soviets would kill 95% of the US population in a full-scale exchange. Zeus would reduce that to only 75%. They concluded it simply wasn't worth building - why bother spending $10 to $12 billion saving a few million civilians?

Zeus eventually died, and was replaced by a way more complex system, Nike-X. Nike-X entered into a race with even more ICBMs. Rinse, repeat - Sentinel, Safeguard, Sentry, SDI... I find the Zeus story to be a wonderful microcosm of the entire Cold War era debate about megadeaths and guns and butter.

Plus it has some super-cool color pictures of missile launches.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • There's only one comment so far at WT:MIL#What to do, what to do..., and that comment may or may not support splitting the article in two. Not my call. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the US raced to close this "missile gap".": Please see the linked article. There was no actual missile gap, and none of the relevant US policymakers believed there was; it was nothing more than an often-repeated lie. Maybe you're clear about this in your article, I haven't checked, but someone reading your lead is most likely to walk away with the opposite impression. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The first of these items was already decided, and the section in question was removed. It will form the basis of a new article, but the Nike-X one comes first.
As to the second, I wrote that one too. Yes, the gap was fictional, but that didn't stop the US from racing to fill it. And it didn't stop them from building thousands of bombers to fill the "bomber gap", nor getting afraid of a sneak attack in the 80s. We know the Soviets also suffered from similar issues, especially when they concluded the US was planning a sneak attack in 1983 due to the number of Dominoes Pizzas being delivered to the Pentagon (there's no way I could make that up). Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Now opposing. This is a stopper for me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, what is a show-stopper for you? Do you refer to the "missile gap" issue? If so, can you explain precisely what it is you feel is the problem? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone reading your lead is most likely to walk away with the opposite impression, that there was a missile gap: "the Soviets claimed to be building hundreds of missiles, and the US raced to close this "missile gap". Building more Zeus' to match the Soviet fleet would be expensive ...". How could they "match the Soviet fleet" if there was no missile gap? You may be taking your quote marks as scare quotes, but a reader could just as easily interpret them as an actual quote. Btw, the plural of "Zeus" is either "Zeuses" (ugh) or "Zeus missiles". - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I just looked at the diffs at missile gap ... thanks for your great work on that one. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Leaving aside for the moment the discussion of a potential article split, and associated length/coverage issues,

Sorry, what specifically are the length/coverage issues? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the article currently meets the other FA criteria. Specifically:

  • Images: File:NIKE_Zeus.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and is sourced to a dead link; other images with dead links; this site doesn't attribute its images AFAICT so sourcing to it cannot support licensing status
Williamson, who I've been talking to for some time to nail down the details in the article, provided these images. They were all made by US Army personnel of contractors during his time on the island. ORTS seems a little slow updating the pages to reflect that. The other "dead links" appear to refer to the ones from WSMR? Can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Prose: grammar and spelling mistakes (eg. "Inestead", "be developed for the both the warhead"), changes in tense (eg "the Report suggests" but then "they state" and then "they suggested"), awkward/unclear phrasing (eg "Having considered the stages of development of the various systems, the Air Force was told to stop work")
All addressed I believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

switches in variety of English (eg. "defense" but then "offence"), etc

This is due to editing on two machines, which insist on different spellings. My plan is to address content and MOS issues and then I will run one last spell check to convert everything to US before pushing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I have completed this change. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Citation formatting: mix of templated and untemplated full citations; incomplete citations (eg FN16); missing italics on work titles; drawing citation details from the wrong place (eg. FN46, which is actually a republication of an earlier source); incorrect ordering on Bibliography; etc
All fixed.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • MOS: MOS:ACCESS issues; dash vs hyphen confusion;
Can you be specific on this? I only use dash, as I understand that is correct. If there are any other types of characters being used, I suspect they are being inserted by a template. Can you give me an example? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

captions with periods that aren't complete sentences; etc

I believe you are referring to the infobox? If so I removed it. Are there any other examples you can find? Maury Markowitz (talk)

You might consider running this through A-class review before FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tunnel Vision (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a song by American singer Justin Timberlake. Although the song didn't receive a huge commercial impact, its iconic music video sparked controversy after its release. I believe the article satisfies the criteria as its well-written (many thanks to Miniapolis (talk · contribs) for the copy-edit from the last FAC), well sourced and referenced. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • "peaked at number 40 on the US Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, and peaked at number eight on the UK R&B Singles Chart"–I think the second "peaked at" could be omitted without losing the meaning of the sentence.
    Copy-edited it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • premiering on July 3 on Timberlake's Vevo channel–"and premiered" sound more grammatically correct than "premiering" because the premiere is finished action.
    Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The opinions of Kia Macarechi and Justin Myers would read better if separated by semicolon instead of "and".
  • What kind of website is It's the first time I've noticed it.
  • I'm little worried about the second sentence of the 'Composition and lyrical interpretation'. It seems to mix facts with opinions, or present opinions as facts ("vacuous" synthesizer or syncopated backbone).
  • There are just opinions now :). — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, can you re-title the section 'Composition and lyrics'? Seems easier to understand and keeps its meaning.
  • "number 27 and sold 6,670 digital copies"–how about "selling 6,670 digital copies" or "with 6,670 digital copies sold"
  • Regarding the live performance, do we know when the song debuted live?
  • @Retrohead:} Done too. I hope you are satisfied with the other responses too. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, appreciate the swift response. Good luck with the other comments.--Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the first review in September, the article underwent a copyediting treatment (I'm not a native English speaker) and I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. The second nomination was closed since no one left a comment for nearly a month, I hope it won't happen again. Thank you. Earthh (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support per previous FACs; I feel that the article has been sufficiently kept up with what I saw FA-fit about it previously and improved in the prose area besides. Tezero (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I think this is a good start towards FAC, but it's not quite there.

  • The inspiration and theme paragraphs are very similar. Can the first two sections be combined?
  • Recording and inspiration is similar to a background section. Composition and theme is more specific, we first have Leto's thoughts and then critics' thoughts on the song.
  • Is it really necessary to mention the single was offered for 69 cents? This statement isn't put into any kind of context (low? high? normal? price).
  • That sentence mentions that the "song was put on sale". It's part of the promotion of the song so it suits in the release section.
  • Is it really important to note that it was offered free from iTunes - especially since we don't know why?
  • Again, it's part of the promotion and suits in that section.
  • The paragraph with the release and peak dates in Europe IMO seems to overdo the dates. Do we need to know exactly what week for all of this, or is it sufficient to say November - January for most of it, and then note that it was later in a few countries?
  • Removed where possible. Dates are necessary for this kind of section, see examples at featured articles like this and this.
  • For the critical reception section, please make sure that every quote has a citation at the end of the sentence - even if that means that two sentences in a row have the same citation.
  • Overcite does not apply to quotations. Each quotation needs a citation at the end of its sentence. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Does any critic compare the piano version to the other version?
  • It's the same song, just a different way of performing it.
  • I'm wavering on whether or not there are too many quotes in the article. On the one hand, it's obviously a very personal song to Leto, so it's important that we have his perspective. On the other hand, I'm a little concerned that parts of it are too much Leto's perspective (or things cited to the band's webpage) and not enough 3rd-party analysis. Then, when criticism is addressed, it is almost entirely quotes from the reviewers strung together.
  • There's very little cited to the band's webpages; you should consider that Leto is the writer, producer, performer of the song and also director of its short film. Every section, in its context, has 3rd-party sources.
  • I understand that Leto is the key figure in this saga...however, the point of the article is not to give HIS perspective, but to give the perspectives of third party sources. If we rely so heavily on quotes from Leto and or paraphrases of what Leto thinks of things, then we are just regurgitating his opinion. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Would you mean that we should not have the author's perspective on his work? That is totally incorrect. In the article we first have Leto's thoughts on the inspiration and theme of the song, followed by analysis and interpretations by third-party sources, so we are not "just regurgitating" the author's opinion. The same thing is done in the sections related to the music video.--Earthh (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no citation for this sentence: From the Hollywood Hills to Hollywood Boulevard, the short film captures the struggle of entertainers from the streets to the big screen.
  • Sourced. Karanacs, please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I think we probably have an enough of a difference of opinion here that its unlikely either will sway the other. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Camas pocket gopher[edit]

Nominator(s): Gaff (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Camas pocket gopher is a rodent endemic to the US State of Oregon. The article was a two sentence stub with a mislabeled image until the recent overhaul, started in November. The text has been expanded with reliable sources to provide comprehensive detail. The article went through a thorough GA review done by a very experienced reviewer. It also went through Peer Review. The text has been copy-edited by a member of the WP:GOCE. Images provided are appropriately sourced (some required emails and added legwork through OTRS). The images have all been cleaned up by the Illustration or Map lab. Everything about the animal is here, so it should be ready. Gaff (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, can you please state whether this is a Wikicup entry or not. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
* I'm not going to compete in Wikicup, so no. --Gaff (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Burrow diagram could stand to be larger
  • How much larger? I'm not particular, since anyone interested can just follow the link. Unless you mean the diagram itself needs to be larger? Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed? better? Gaff (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is something missing from the 1879 caption?
  • fixed Copyeditor may have truncated. Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
* Interesting, since this set of maps by this uploader is used for locator maps all across the US [4] and on the template for most Oregon locations and the List of counties in Oregon. I think it will just be easier and better (and fun) if I redraw the map from trusted PD sources, to also show more of N America west coast, for perspective. I can certainly accomplish that and have made other similar maps. Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
* fixed see new map and clarified source. Gaff (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • This may be a problem, since the licensing looks weird and the creator (an en:WP ADMIN) may not still be active User:Decumanus. The uploader is still active on Commons. I will contact them or get a new map made. This map is not essential to the article, but is helpful. Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
The uploader at commons did not make this map and the user who did (the WP admin) is no longer active. There is a similar, better looking, map here File:Map missoula floods.gif. I'm asking for more info as to the data used to create the color coded regions, but it looks promising. If this fails and if you/we feel that a map is needed to illustrate where these floods swept through, it is a trivial matter to have one made, even based only on descriptive text of what regions were affected by the floods. --Gaff (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed I changed to the better sourced map. This map is sourced from USGS and is PD. The text derives from the original uncropped version of the file and can be seen in the edit history here. The user at Commons who uploaed the map has commented here . This should be adequate to clarify sourcing and is a nice looking map. --Gaff (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Les Holden[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Following on from Elwyn Roy King, Roy Phillipps and Garnet Malley, I present another Australian fighter ace of World War I to help commemorate the centenary of that conflict. Okay, you've probably never heard of Les except by association (his uncle co-founded car manufacturer Holden), but he certainly led an interesting life. King and Phillipps may have been the more successful aces, but Holden had the most eventful post-war career in civil aviation. Like them, he died too early, in this case on a routine passenger flight after having survived numerous brushes with death during the war, not to mention the wilds of New Guinea in the earliest days of its air transport industry. Thanks to everyone who stopped by the recent MilHist A-Class Review and in advance to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Forrest Highway[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For my fourth FAC, I bring you Forrest Highway, which connects Perth (via Kwinana Freeway) to Bunbury, Western Australia. It is one of the state's newest highways, opened in September 2009, but its history dates back to the settlement of Australind in the 1840s. Happing reading, and I look forward to your comments. - Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I also reviewed, and did an image review. --Rschen7754 05:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment in the section Forrest_Highway#Forrest_Highway_after_opening the second paragraph refers to the opening of service facilities by the end of 2014, as it happens to now be 2015 that reads as dated. Gnangarra 03:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I can not find any more recent sources that discuss the proposed service centres. I could trim off that last sentence if it would make it seem less dated. - Evad37 [talk] 08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Gnangarra: I have a sources that explains the delay, and updated the article - Evad37 [talk] 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    thanks caught this as I was heading out the door to take some photos of the area to address the issue consider me a support now Gnangarra 01:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The article meets the FA criteria and it is well-written. --Carioca (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Prose review needed for Overuse of however and overuse of subsequently (often redundant, and redundant in this article). Also, when there is nothing in the See also section, it can be eliminated and the Portal links can be placed in the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reduced and copyedited usage of however, removed the three instances of subsequently, and removed the See also section - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, one more. Per MOS:SURNAME and MOS:HONORIFIC, why are there several instances of Mr. in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed most of them, but I don't have a first name or even initial for Mrs Lyttleton - Evad37 [talk] 04:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Exhumation of Richard III of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article in advance of the reburial of Richard III on 26 March 2015, an event which is certain to attract huge interest around the world. It has recently been through a GA review which it passed without any particular difficulties, so I'm confident that it's in good shape and is ready for consideration as a featured article candidate. Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note - Please check for dead or broken links; Refs 88, 91 and 102 for example. Graham Beards (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I missed that in my GA review. Sorry.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Review by 3family6[edit]

- Lead

  • The opening paragraph is a single sentence. That might be acceptable, I'm not that well versed in the MOS, but I think it should be expanded or merged into the following paragraph.
  • Agreed, I've done this. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a citation in the lead for the injuries to the skull. Per WP:LEADCITE, I think this is something that could be better explained in the article, and thus a citation is not needed. The second citation in the lead I think is okay, considering it is supporting a direct quote.
  • I've taken out both citations. The first isn't really needed as the injuries are already covered in sufficient (sourced) detail in the article. As for the second, the direct quote doesn't really need to be a quote at all - it's already attributed. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

- Looking for Richard

  • "...which she envisaged as 'a proposed landmark TV special'." - this should have a citation, since it's a direct quote.
  • " Its premise was a search for Richard's grave 'while at the same time telling his real story'.[28][18] Its objective was stated as being 'to search for, recover and rebury his mortal remains with the honour, dignity and respect so conspicuously denied following his death at the battle of Bosworth.'[29] - the prose seemed slightly repetitive here. Perhaps re-write as "Its premise was a search for Richard's grave 'while at the same time telling his real story',[28][18] with an objective 'to search for, recover and rebury his mortal remains with the honour, dignity and respect so conspicuously denied following his death at the battle of Bosworth.'[29]"
  • University of Leicester Archaeological Services is given as a redlink in the lead, but is not linked in its first appearance in the article body.
  • I was under the impression that links in the lead shouldn't be repeated in the body? I'll create a separate spin-off article to cover ULAS. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar enough with the consensus on wikilinks, in this case a redlink, in the lead, so I don't know. I'll leave that to your discretion (if another editor knows this consensus better, I invite them to speak up).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

- Citations

  • I've resolved this by taking out two of the deadlinks as unnecessary duplication, and updating the third. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Richard was killed fighting Henry Tudor in 1485, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last major battle of the Wars of the Roses. The Welsh poet Guto'r Glyn gave the credit for Richard's death to Sir Rhys ap Thomas.": I don't know how to weigh the credibility of the second claim here, and I can't tell if it contradicts the first claim or not.
  • No contradiction, Thomas was a soldier in Henry's army. I've added "a Welsh member of Henry's army who was said to have struck the fatal blow" to clarify this point. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "contemptously": Typo? If it's accurate, you don't need a sic, I think.
  • No typo, but I'm not seeing a sic. Did I miss something? Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, I see it now. Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dissolution": use consistent capitalization
  • It's correct as it is. "Dissolution" with a capital D refers to the overarching event of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, while "dissolution" with a lower-case d refers to individual dissolutions of individual institutions. Thus "the friary's dissolution" is correct as this was an individual event while "the Dissolution" is also correct as this was the overarching event. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "geneticist Turi King continues to pursue a link": Whether this is okay depends on how you interpret the exception in WP:DATED for "current events". In general, it's better if you can give some kind of date, for instance "In 2015, geneticist Turi King was still pursuing a link ...", if that's true (but if it's not true, then the present tense is wrong, too).
  • I don't know if it's still true, so I've changed "continues" to "continued". Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The reburial will take place": In-text attribution would be a little better ... that is, "X has scheduled reburial ..."
  • I'm not sure about this - I don't have an attribution for X. Presumably some committee or other, but that isn't stated. I think it works OK as it is, to be honest. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support by Karanacs. This is an excellently written article, and very informative. I've watched some of the documentaries and read many of the newspaper articles, and you've done an excellent job of distilling the information down to an understandable level. Note that I did not check images. A few minor quibbles:

  • several instances of quotes without a citation at the end of that sentence
  • OK, I think I've found them all, but please take a look to see if that's the case. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Two different names are given for the journal of the Richard III Society - The Ricardian and the Ricardian Bulletin
  • There are two journals - The Ricardian appears to be the major one for the big articles, while the Ricardian Bulletin is a smaller one for news and updates, published at more frequent intervals. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " A table tomb was both the choice of the Richard III society in polls of Leicester people" - is that supposed to be "and" instead of "in?
  • That was pretty badly worded (not one of mine), so I've rewritten that line. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Close to a support. As others have said, lots of really good work here. A few minor comments on the prose from me:

  • "The dig was led by the..." would it be better to put this as "The archaeological dig..." in the first instance of its use? (or "The archaeological excavation...") (it felt a bit informal to me)
  • Good point - I've gone for the latter. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " show that £50 and £10.1s were paid to two men " - I couldn't quite work out if this was supposed to be two payments to both men (i.e. both got £50, and then £10), or if one got £50 and the other £10. Might just be me, but I'd have expected "£10 1s" or "£10/1s"rather than "£10.1s".
  • I've reworded and reformatted this a bit, see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although Richard's monument had evidently disappeared by this time, it was still known where his grave was." - I wasn't sure who this was referenced to. It seems to be Halsted, writing in 1844, in which case the best we can say now would presumably be that they believed they knew where the grave was; we don't actually know if they'd placed the monument on the same location where we've now found the grave.
  • I've added an additional source to make the attribution a bit clearer. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Around when Herrick's pillar was erected, the cartographer and antiquarian John Speed wrote in his Historie of Great Britaine (1611) that local tradition held..." unclear if the "around when" is the date of Speed's book (i.e. 1611) - or if this bit refers to "local tradition held" and is an earlier date that Speed is commenting about. The article doesn't give the date of the pillar being erected, so its hard to tell from reading this paragraph.
  • We probably don't really need that first clause, so I've taken it out to make the meaning clearer. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The coffin certainly seems to have existed" - as written, this gives the impression that the coffin in question was Richard's, which turns out not to be the case later in the paragraph. I'd suggest "A coffin..."
  • "the possible location of the king's grave" - the MOS would have this as "the King's grave"
  • That seems inconsistent - there are plenty of other lower-case references to "the king". Which part of the MOS? Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • MOS:JOBTITLE I think covers the capitalisation of king. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree, it should be lower case. I can't see where in the MoS you are refering to. Graham Beards (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I presume this bit: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases: [...] When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II." Is that what you were referring to, Hchc2009? Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep - in this case "the king" is a substitute for Richard's name, rather than a generic reference to a king or kings, and so should be capitalised. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "only the remains of men in their 30s, " - you'll want consistency of how you phrase "30s" as numbers (as here) or words, e.g. "thirties" (as in the lead) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed 30s to "thirties". Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): ceradon (talkcontribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Battle of Malvern Hill, fought July 1, 1862, between General George McClellan's Army of the Potomac and General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. The battle ended in a Confederate defeat and effectively ended McClellan's campaign on the Virginian Peninsula. This is my first FA article but I dare not ask you to go easy on me (neither will you ;)). FAs are the best of the best. For the record though, I would like to get it to FA before July 1 so it can be featured on the Main Page. It may be jumping the gun but it is a solid goal :) Thank you, ceradon (talkcontribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: You should probably mention that the battle is part of the American Civil War in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Is the Battle begins caption taken from somewhere else, or is meant to be a title? Its tone is a bit odd
    • Changed to "The Union ships Monitor, Galena, Jacob Bell and Aroostook launching missiles onto the battlefield at Malvern Hill." Good?
  • File:Sneden_watercolor_of_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • I think this is corrected.
  • File:GenGS.jpg needs US PD tag and author date of death
    • This should be done as well.
  • File:John_B_Magruder.jpg: author and date of death?
    • Not sure if this corrects it, but I changed the license to {{PD-US}}. It was published between 1861-1865, well before 1923 so must be in the public domain. Furthermore, the source (Library of Congress) doesn't say who the source is.
  • File:Revised_Union_battleplan_for_the_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Map_of_the_night's_march_after_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg
    • Instead of {{PD-US}}, tagged the images with {{PD-old}} and {{PD-1923}}. The author died more than 70 years ago so they're in the public domain. I don't think the exact date of publishing is necessary then right?
      • Not quite. We know that these images were created during the war, but they were in someone's diary, which is an archival source unless it was known to be published. Without more information we can't assume that PD-1923 applies. Was the diary formally published at some point, or was its first "publication" the digitization by LOC? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: According to the Virginia Historical Society, it was published in 2000 but there are no restrictions on use/re-use of anything in it. Excuse my ignorance of matters of files licenses but how should I play this lieu of that information. Just put a {{public domain}} tag on it and update it with "No restrictions on usage" and the VHS source. Thank you, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
        • VHS source link here BTW: --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Hmmm. I'm a bit confused about how VHS is coming up with their restriction notes. If we look at this record - where given the dates involved part of the collection is certainly copyrighted - it still says no restrictions. Same with several other recent (1980-1990s) records. This leads me to suspect that they are not including copyright in their consideration of usage restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Union_barrage_at_Malvern_Hill_-_July_1,_1862.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Can I use this as a source? It's from the Hampton Roads Naval Museum. I could also use this as a source from the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. Using the former would allow me to reupload a more clear, coloured version of the same image. Both of those seem to be reliable sources. In fact I can use both. The source at the VAF says it was published in 1863 and since it's necessary that I provide a date of publication, that's valuable. Thoughts? (By the way, thank you Nikkimaria for the image review.) Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 17:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe we can mark this as done as well. I've reuploaded a colored version. and added {{PD-art}} and {{PD-old-100}}. Both are applicable and together they prove that the image is in the public domain according to US copyright laws and most copyright laws around the world. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I'll be happy to help with copyediting after we get a support or two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thank you Dank. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Horace Greeley[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... Horace Greeley, editor of the New-York Tribune and Democratic/Liberal Republican candidate for president in 1872. He may have been the most influential man in America in the 1850s and 1860s, possibly even more than Lincoln for part of the Civil War. This is, I should add, a Vital Article. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Nominated by leave of Graham Beards although my previous nom hasn't quite cleared the page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: This man should have been president (Greeley, I mean, not Wehwalt – though who knows?) but he was saddled with a most unfortunate unelectability. I learned a great deal about him during my extensive peer review (link here if anyone wants a look) including that he didn't actually say the words which even the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations credits him with ("Go West, young man..." etc}. His ideas seem mightily progressive for the Gilded Age, but he was an odd-looking cove, which counted against him. So the electors rejected him, time and again, for every office he sought. But he has my vote. Support for the article is subject to clearance on sources and images – I'll do the source review myself if I can find time, but I shall be away for 10 days from Friday. Generally, a most impressive article on an important and fascinating individual. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the campaign contribution, I mean review and support. Enjoy your time away.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources review[edit]

All sources look to be of appropriate quality and reliability. A few general issues:

  • Ref 6 requires pp.
  • Some adjoining refs overlap, e.g. 29 & 30, 35 & 36, maybe others
  • Ref 96 requires pp.
  • Only the Taliaferro book in the bibliography gives publisher location.
  • "Further reading": the lists include Nevins's DAB and Lunde's ANB entries, both of which are cited sources and shouldn't appear under this heading. I don't think it's a good idea to list further reading items as secondary and primary sources. If they are not cited, they are not sources for this article, so another label should be used. Also, is it necessary to have quite so many "further readings"? The formats in these lists are a little untidy – some years bracketed, others not; inconsistency on publisher locations; "online" v. "online edition" etc. Personally I would trim and tidy these lists.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for those. I've fixed 6 and 96 and cleaned up the Further reading, dividing it between books by Greeley and other works. I did try to remove the DNB entries, but Rjensen feels that the book form is useful to have there, and I'm inclined to defer to him on this one. The further reading section, I'm afraid, is one I spend not a great deal of time on.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

  • Looks fine overall. My only quibble is with the last sentence. I find "prior to" is almost always better replaced by "before". It's not something worth opposing over, but I think it's best to use more direct language, when possible.
Concur and will change.
Cool. Don't know if you're a fan, but Bryan A. Garner's work on legal writing influenced me on a lot of things like that.
I read one of his books with Scalia when I did Scalia's article. I'll see if I can hunt it up.
Early life

"...Zaccheus's financial reverses caused him to flee New Hampshire..." Is this a flight from creditors and the sheriff, or just a change of location in hopes of a new start?

The former. The farm and possessions were sold at auction. Zaccheus feared debtor's prison. Williams, p. 11.
OK. I don't know if it's worth adding, but I don't know if modern readers realize how badly debt could affect a person back then.
First efforts
  • Do his biographers indicate where Greeley got the capital to launch the New-Yorker?
Greeley, in his autobiography, indicates he had earned some money and had a partner.
Editor of the Tribune
  • You cite Nevins, but don't list the work in the primary bibliography.
Arrgh. Will check into this.
  • I don't completely understand how Greeley got to Congress. Was he the Whig candidate in a special election, or were replacement House members appointed in those days?
I guess that was how it was done in New York, anyway. The Whig Committee for the Sixth Ward (district) picked him. There's a certain justice in it, the Whigs were cheated of the seat by Jackson, they got to decide who filled it is unusual by today's standards, where all House members are elected by the people (something not necessarily true of the Senate).
OK, then it's fine as it is. I just wasn't aware that was how it went down back then.
Came as a surprise to me too. I assumed all House members were always elected by the people, or whatever part of them got to vote anyway.
  • I'd consider linking Louis Kossuth and some of the other "-isms" Greeley is accused of following. They may be unfamiliar to average readers.
I thought about it but I'm uncertain if I could correctly ascertain all of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. The point of the statement, I guess, was that Greeley was a weird guy into weird ideas. That's clear without a sea of blue links. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Just so. It saves me the trouble of actually discussing all these things, which probably the reader doesn't care about too much.
  • " In an editorial on November 9," It seems like you're missing a couple of words here.
  • "When the attack on Fort Sumter took place..." might be better as "When the rebels attacked Fort Sumter..." or something similar.
Presidential candidacy
  • "For this, he was attacked as a seeker after office." There's just something off about this sentence. Maybe something about how personally campaigning was seen as unseemly and grasping at the time would work better.
  • Everything else looks ship-shape to me. Nice article, I look forward to supporting. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that. Except as noted, I think I've caught everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Great, looks good. I'm happy to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Influence caption should italicize Tribune
  • File:Horace_Greeley_Signature.svg: do we have a date or original source for the sig? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I traced it down and it came from [5], but that doesn't work. Since signatures are not copyrightable, we can still use the existing signature. If there's a major problem with that, I'll hunt another one down. I just hate to ask Connormah, who is very helpful to me on this sort of thing, to do unnecessary work. On the other one, are we talking about the image of the Tribune staff? Because I looked at it and the only problem with the caption is that it needed a hyphen, which I've added.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – for some reason the peer review passed me by, but in any case I have found only four infinitesimally small points to quibble about:

  • First efforts at publishing
    • "Constitutionalist, that mostly printed lottery" – as this is a non-restrictive, descriptive clause I think you want "which" here
    • "1836–1837" – I believe the MoS suggests the form "1836–37"
It's only a suggestion. That would involve changing every range in the bibliography. I think it's best left as is.
  • Draft Riots and peace efforts
    • "The books were very successful … a very large sale for the time" – perhaps lose the second "very"?
    • "Lincoln said nothing publicly, but privately indicated that he had no confidence in Greeley anymore" – it isn't obvious why Greeley had lost Lincoln's confidence.
I've tweaked it thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing there to prevent a declaration of support for this enjoyable and informative article. Plainly meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 09:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and your support. Except as noted, I've done those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the worlds first photorealistic digitally animated film. I am aware the 'Themes' section is a bit thin for FAC, but it's the best I could do; the film was not well received critically, and while countless sources discuss the impact of the groundbreaking animation, I found very few sources that discussed the film's themes. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Freikorp, could you let us know whether or not this a Wikicup entry? The bot that used to highlight this is down, so we're on manual for the moment as far as checking goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Ian Rose. I am participating in the cup for the first time, so I would like it to count (assuming it passes of course). Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Ian Rose. I'm four for four with reviewers supporting the nomination. Is there anything this nomination still needs to be passed? Sorry to ask but i'm really keen to nominate another article i've been working on for FAC. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The article needs an image review. I'd help there, but I'm pretty shaky on fair use rules since they're so ambiguous. Also, I'm not sure what the guidelines for passing have evolved into, but generally the coordinators are looking to see that the article was thoroughly vetted and not given drive-by supports. (In other words, although a certain number of supports are needed, the quality of the reviews also matters.) I'm guessing you're fine there. After that, the coordinators sweep through the entire list of nominations once or twice a week, promoting and archiving nominations as necessary. Following an image review, you'll just have to sit tight and wait like the rest of us. – Maky « talk » 09:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. :) Freikorp (talk) 09:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Prose review by Maky[edit]

I loved this film and would be glad to review it. I, too, am working on getting an article like this one to FAC (pending GAN), and though I'm not an expert in the requirements for these articles, I'll review it to the level that I've taken my own anime articles. I don't think the minimal discussion of the film's themes is a problem. The articles I've written so far have suffered the same problem—everyone praising the animation but giving only shallow to non-existent discussion of the themes. As long as you have combed as many sources as possible, I feel you're fine there.

  • I don't think the cast section is needed. All but four of the voice actors are already discussed in the plot section. If you have a source for those four characters, I'd just note somewhere else in the article that they were also part of the voice cast.
I might wait for a second opinion on this one, if that's OK with you. Freikorp (talk)
That's fine, but read WP:FILMCAST. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, it's one or the other, not both. (Compare Departures if you want). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sid finds the eighth spirit at the crater site of the alien asteroid's impact on Earth." This sentence seems out of place. I'd put it at the start of the next paragraph.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
I hope you don't mind, but I moved the second sentence back up to the previous paragraph since it pertained to another escape. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the plot section, I would clarify that there are two Gaia's, the alien and Earth versions.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
Again, I tweaked it a bit. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "raised interesting questions" – It's not our place to judge questions as interesting or not.
This is the opinion of the source, not original research. Do you think it should still be removed? Freikorp (talk)
You're right—the article clearly says that the source states that. My bad. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "was selected by Sakaguchi based on his decision" – sound redundant.
Removed. Freikorp (talk)
  • "blew out from" ... sounds a bit like slang.
Reworded. Freikorp (talk)
  • "extremely positive reviews" – trim the adverb
Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • "Dan Goldwasser from also gave the film 4 out of 5" – the film or the soundtrack?
Soundtrack; my bad. Thanks for noticing. Freikorp (talk)
  • With Rotten Tomatoes, are we supposed to use "All critics" or "Top critics"? I honestly don't know... You might want to check to be sure.
I've seen 'all critics' cited the most, though i've noted that some articles will also cite the top critics in addition to this. Freikorp (talk)
Again, I'm not sure myself. I'll just leave this one open and see what other reviewers think. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See: MOS:FILM#Critical response and MOS:FILM#Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I guess this one is taken care of now. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " particular if the presence of her unconsciousness in the film..." – I'm not sure I understand what is meant here.
I didn't add that text to the article, and searching through the eBook preview oddly doesn't even get any matches for 'Final Fantasy': [6]. I'm not 100% sure what it's implying either, though my best guess is it's implying a 'cartoon' character would appear more human if she was seen to be vulnerable. As I can't confirm this, and as I'm now questioning whether this information appears in the book at all, i'm just going to remove all of it. Freikorp (talk)
Good move. I would strongly recommend verifying any information you did not add to the article before you submit to FAC... if possible. This raises questions about what else might not have been checked. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough for saying that. In my defence, here is the version of the article before my first edit [7]. I have added almost all the information to the article since then, and also successfully nominated it for GA. The only thing that isn't really mine is a sufficient chunk of what is now in the 'Reception of Aki Ross' sub-section, so that's what I haven't checked. I'll make an effort to check it now. It was well written and referenced so I accepted it in good faith. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I've since checked all the sources in that sub-section. All of them check out, with the possible exception of the last one, Action and Adventure Cinema. Google preview [8] shows that 'Aki Ross' does indeed appear in the book (though it's unclear as to where) , but i'm not getting any hits for the direct quotes "into an erotic fantasy machine" or "least overtly eroticised". The eBook is $35, more than i'd like to spend. You're thoughts? Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The preview Google gave me and what the preview search on Amazon turned up was limited due to bad OCR. On Google, I read 3 brief mentions of Aki and one about the role of the military and the counsel, but nothing confirmed what is cited. Admittedly, one or more pages were omitted from that part of the book's preview. Using WorldCat, can you request a copy through your local library? – Maky « talk » 17:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
My local library said that only universities held a copy of the book. While public libraries charge $5 for inter-library loans, university libraries charge $21.50. As it was only an extra $14 to have my own permanent copy of the book, I took the plunge and bought it. At first I thought the information wasn't in the book; there is definitely something wrong with the books character recognition, but manually searching the book after one successful recognition of the name 'Aki' found the information is indeed there. I reworded the information a bit based on the source. Freikorp (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you know the page numbers, do you mind doing the Sfn thing for this source as well? After that, I'll strike this issue. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Surprisingly for a film loosely based on a video game series, there were never any plans for a game adaptation of the film itself." – How about "atypical" or something with less emotion.
Done. Freikorp (talk)
  • If The Making of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within had so much information about the film, why is it only cited once in the article? Same with the "Making Of" featurette.
The book wasn't as helpful as I thought it would be; most of the pages were just pretty pictures. There were an awful lot of detailed biographies of not only the characters but also weapons/vehicles etc used in the film, which weren't useful to me. I only got access to the book after i'd finished writing the article, when the production section was already sufficient. I'm sure I could pull something else out of the book if I tried, I just didn't feel a need to. The only information the book had that the article was lacking in was the 'themes' information, which I promptly added to the article. I haven't seen the making of featurette, as I only own the iTunes copy of the film. I haven't felt the need to get a copy of it for the same reasons. Freikorp (talk)
I own the DVD and can watch the featurette for you. However, if there is information there that needs to be added, I can't really add it if I'm going to support this article. At least I can tell you whether or not it's worth getting your hands on. I'll get back to you. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I've watched the featurette, and I do recommend getting a copy of it for inclusion in the article for the sake of comprehensiveness. Although there are large chunks of trivial and superficial information, there are important bits, such as the origin of Aki's name, discussion of the Gaia theme, how the production progressed, and key issues faced at each stage in production. – Maky « talk » 08:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Well that's good to know, but this will take me a few days. I live in a small town; my local video store says their copy is missing, and the library doesn't have a copy either. I've just ordered a copy off eBay for $5.59 (so happy DVD's aren't worth anything anymore lol), now I just have to wait for it turn up. I should have it by next Wednesday. Freikorp (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
@Maky: Just an update to let you know I haven't forgotten about this. The ebay seller I purchased the DVD off only marked it as 'posted' today, so I expect to get it by mid next week now. Freikorp (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry, I haven't forgotten either. I figured shipping might take a bit. Sorry, but if I had the software to rip and encode the featurette I would have just sent it to you. – Maky « talk » 18:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Maky: I got the film and added info from both the 'Making of' featurette and also the 'Matte Art Exploration' featurette. Have a look and let me know what you think. I'm not sure if the information regarding Sakaguchi's mother best belongs in 'Themes' or 'Production'. Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The information looks good, and I tweaked the placement and wording of the mention of his mother. I hope it's okay. – Maky « talk » 07:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Any information about how much the DVD was able to recover financially?
I haven't been able to find any. If anybody else can i'd be happy to add information on this, i'd certainly be very interested to know how much it made. Freikorp (talk)
  • The last sentence of the lead should be incorporated in the body (with its references).
Thanks for spotting this. I added the information to the 'Legacy and related media' section. Freikorp (talk)
You might also note the "box-office bomb" in the "Critical reception" section.
Done. Freikorp (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is information in the infobox that is not mentioned and cited in the body of the article.
I assume you were referring to the premiere - I added that to the release section. Just in case anyone was wondering, WP:RSN indicates the source I found is acceptable: See here. Freikorp (talk)
I was talking about the "Produced by", "Screenplay by", "Cinematography", "Editing", "Distributed by", and the release date for the premiere. They are not given in the body nor cited. Some of it can be cited to the film itself if you can verify it in the credits. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. I cited some of this information to the book The Making of Final Fantasy. Freikorp (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
"Edited by" with "Christopher S. Capp" is not cited. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've cited information about him in the home media section (he features on one of the DVD's audio commentary tracks). Is this sufficient? Freikorp (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • To help maintain this article after FAC is done, I strongly recommend archiving your web refs with WebCite. The Cite web template has parameters for storing the archive url and archive date.
Done. I didn't archive the World Soundtrack Awards reference as the archived version didn't allow the pop-up window to view the cited information. I also didn't archive Rotten Tomatoes or Meta-critic, as information may change slightly in the future, and they are both established sites unlikely to shut-down anyway. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The last part of the discussion of Robot Ghosts and Wired Dreams in the Themes section—particularly this: "and also by the animation software and the electricity powering the computers that were running the software"—left me scratching my head. Have you verified this source?
Yes, that was all written by me. I own the source (Kindle format). I thought the author was making a bit of a leap with that sentence as well, but I was desperate for 'Themes' comments, so I added it in. Source reads: "The aliens are not exactly dead people but spectres of long-deceased creatures. They are (re)animated by several kinds of forces: by the energy of the red Gaia; by the human spiritual, bio-etheric energy; by the animation software used to create them; and, quite literally, by the electricity feeding the computer workstations where the ghostly invaders were born." Feel free to reword as you see fit. Freikorp (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the way you focus on the "reanimation" aspect (bringing these specters back to life in the film), there's no need to dive into that "animation" aspect that the author is trying to draw a parallel with. If anything, it creates confusion. I think I'm just going to delete that latter part for clarity. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, good job so far. – Maky « talk » 21:24, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Maky. I've replied to all your concerns, please let me know if anything requires further detail or clarification. Freikorp (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maky. With the exception of the DVD featurette (which i'm still waiting for in the mail), the film cast (which i'm leaving in until I get one more opinion, I don't disagree that it's not necessarily needed, but it isn't hurting anything and I know IP's are just going to constantly add it back if I remove it) and the archive URL advice (which is a good idea, and I may get to it later, but it isn't a requirement to pass FAC) i've addressed all concerns again. If you could provide strikethroughs or comments to let me know how i'm going that would be appreciated. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delayed response. It's been a busy week. I've struck some more points and left some responses. Don't worry about IP edits—let's see what other reviewers say, and if they agree that it's redundant and unnecessary, then revert anyone who adds it back. I'll be waiting for the additional info from the new source and will give my support then. The article is looking really good. And please don't forget to archive the web refs. ;-) No, it's not required for FAC (though it should be, IMO), but it will help prevent this article from making its way back to FAR. I won't strike that point until it's done, but I'm not going to withhold support until then either. – Maky « talk » 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I've archived the refs, see above. I'm very much hoping this DVD turns up tomorrow lol. Freikorp (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: All of my concerns have been addressed. Excellent job on the article! For the future, though, please try to cover all the sources (meeting the comprehensiveness requirement) before submitting to FAC. Otherwise the handling of the other various issues is pretty much par for the course. – Maky « talk » 07:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review by I JethroBT[edit]

Oh boy, I remember having a very chilly reception to this movie when I saw it during its theatrical release. Anyway, let's get on with the source review:

Minor stuff
  • Consider using Ucucha's script for referencing errors, albeit there are only two related ones which appear in this article. The Tasker (2004) citation doesn't point to anything in particular, when it looks like it should point to the source in the bibliography under O'Day (2004). Looks like it's just an issue of the authorship being in the wrong spot in one place or another.
Fixed the O'Day/Tasker author problem. Freikorp (talk) 23:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Ruth La Ferla (2001) citation reads, "pp. 9–1." Is this supposed to be "pp. 9–10"?
Hmm, it's actually supposed to be 1–2, not sure what happened there. Fixed in any case. Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The publisher field for citations like Template:Cite book read, Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher). This means you can probably nix the New York Times Company in the Ruth La Ferla citation.
Fixed. Freikorp (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
More involved stuff
  • Are pages numbers or a specific chapter title available for the multiple citations for the Bolton et al. (2007) publication?
I've now added the chapter name. Unfortunately I only have the kindle version of the book, which does not have page numbers. If there is a way to reference a specific area in a kindle book I am unaware of how to do so. Freikorp (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the chapter title will be sufficient. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Time Magazine article seems to be behind a subscription paywall. Can any claims that it currently supports can be verified through an existing or different source?
When I first added that source to the article a subscription was not required to read it. I'm fairly certain I won't be able to find an alternate source for the last 3 of the 4 inline citations it is used for, thought the first one (use of motion capture) should be easy to find a replacement for. Freikorp (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That's OK, I figured it was situation like that. Articles behind subscription walls can definitely be used, but their use should be minimized as much as possible. I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Found an existing source used in the article that backs up the motion capture usage, and added that as an additional inline citation. Freikorp (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Some additional sources to consider incorporating
Interestingly this last source is the same text that appears in chapter 10 of the Bolton et al. (2007) book. Same author and text, just published under a different title. Freikorp (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (I can provide these sources if you cannot access them for any reason.)
In general, the sources look decent at a cursory glance, but I'll do a more through review later today or tomorrow. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Just wondering if you're still able to provide a more thorough review, as i'm fairly sure this article only needs one more 'support'. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Freikorp: Right, sorry. I will be finishing up with the sources tomorrow, thanks for the reminder. I, JethroBT drop me a line 10:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Freikorp: Finished with the source check-- current sources in the article look solid, and I did not see any OR or other issues with regard to phrasing in the article compared the source. Any impression of that interview with Cortina in the source above? Seems like it could be used to expand the character modelling section a bit more, which afterall, the film in known for. Once I hear back from you on it, I can consider supporting this for FA. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: I added some new information from that source regarding the software programs used to create the characters. This information was really helpful, thanks. Other than that though, I don't think there's any further information in this book that can be used. Freikorp (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
@Freikorp: Looks good. Glad the source was helpful. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Support per the addressed revisions and improvements regarding sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Done. Never worked on a video-game inspired film before so I didn't know I could put it under the project. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Done some copyediting, mainly in the lead; feel free to revert.
Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "render farm" - possibly jargon
It's wikilnked to an article of the same name that clearly explains what it is, so I don't see a problem, though I am more than happy to accept suggestions for alternate wording. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "capable of killing humans by physical contact" - how? By venomous stinging cells like jellyfish, by sharp blades like rays, or with something supernatural? The talk of infection implies the first - unless that's different from how they kill?
Clarified that "physical contact with a Phantom separates a living creature from their Gaia spirit, killing them instantly". Feel free to reword. Freikorp (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What's a "barrier city"?
Clarified. Freikorp (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it "Dr. Sid" or "Doctor Sid"?
Consistently formatted as "Doctor", this is what appears in the credits. Freikorp (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is revealed that Gray was once romantically involved with Aki." - Is this important to the plot at this point? If not, you might consider mentioning it earlier or just leaving it out.
I suppose it's not important to mention in order to understand the film, though it does play as a sub-plot throughout the film,and this is its first appearance, so i'd rather give it a brief mention than leave it out unless that's going to be a problem. Freikorp (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the leadership council" - what leadership council?
I don't think it's specified, it's just referred to as the leadership council, and implied it is the leadership of what remains of humanity. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "delays the use of it by revealing that she has been infected and the collected spirit signatures are keeping her infection stable" - haven't seen the movie so perhaps there's context I'm missing, but how would this delay an attack on the Gaia?
Clarified this revelation convinces the council there may be an alternate way to defeating the Phantoms than the Zeus cannon. Freikorp (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "This revelation convinces Hein that she is being controlled by the Phantoms." - Correctly? Does the infection also include mind control?
Specify incorrectly. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Her dream reveals" - only to the audience, or to Sid?
Aki realises it herself (and accordingly the audience becomes aware); i've stated she becomes aware of it. Freikorp (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Which form of English are you using for the article? The lack of Oxford commas and the date ordering suggests British, but then there are constructions like "authorization".
I write in British English, though I may have missed a couple American English words. I've fixed this one and will look for more. Freikorp (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Be back with more of a review later. Tezero (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • "During her development, he altered the model to appear more intelligent looking, shortening the hair, and removing makeup from" - ambiguous; were the hair shortening and makeup removal part of his attempt to make her more intelligent-looking (should contain a hyphen, by the way) or separate entries in a list?
Reworded to clarify. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the Matrix setting" - link to the article of the franchise, the first film, or Animatrix
Done (franchise). Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "much to studio president Jun Aida's lament" - not sure this is relevant; can you detail why he was upset about this or why it's otherwise significant?
Removed, it's probably not surprisingly they were unhappy about retiring a character they had put so much effort into. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "acknowledged as a technological tour-de-force" - possibly non-neutral; should probably move to Reception anyway
Reworded to simply say it was well received. Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "John DiMaggio as BFW soldier #1" - seems unusually specific for a Wikipedia film cast list - was this soldier especially significant?
No. I think someone just added that because DiMaggio is a regular voice actor for the video games. Removed. Maky actual suggested removing the entire cast section as per WP:FILMCAST. What are your thoughts on this? Freikorp (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't quite see how those guidelines would support removing it, though I guess I wouldn't object to its culling. Tezero (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all, it is mostly redundant since the majority of the cast are discussed elsewhere in the article. For the remaining three cast members, there is no citation to support their mention, either here or in the infobox. – Maky « talk » 18:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Tezero (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Does there need to be a citation? Isn't that information, like the plot, implicitly covered by the work itself? Or is this under the expectation that if they're not covered by a secondary source, they're probably not worth mentioning? (If the latter, while I think this argument tends to be overused in situations when articles aren't really comprehensible without certain primary-sourced information, I'd understand it more here.) Tezero (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right. I'm used to working with film articles where the original work gives credits in kanji... so I never know if people are going to object since they can't read it to verify. But the redundancy is still a minor issue. The last three cast members could easily be added to a relevant section of the article, negating the need for a "Cast" section. It's not a *huge* deal though. – Maky « talk » 19:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; can't see anything else disagreeable about the page, so it's time for a vote. Nice work. Tezero (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rodrigues starling[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A shorter companion to the recently promoted hoopoe starling article, this one is about a related extinct bird with an interesting history. Most of what is known about the bird (which is very little) is here. The article has been copyedited and promoted to GA. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
  • Be consistent in whether you use London or London, UK
  • FN22 is missing location. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed all but the first one, not sure how to do that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I changed the colwidth per recs here : Template:Reflist#Columns --Gaff (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments from JM
  • "He stated that he was confined to the offshore islet of Île Gombrani, which was then called au Mât." He was, or the bird was?
The bird, not sure what happened there! FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In an article written in 1875, British ornithologist Alfred Newton attempted to identify the bird, and hypothesised that it was related to the also extinct hoopoe starling (Fregilupus varius) of nearby Réunion.[4]" This is a slightly confusing sentence, as you jump from talking about eyewitnesses to assuming that the reader knows that the species is extinct. How about something like "Writing in 1875, some time after the species's extinction, British ornit...". Also, perhaps you could specify that this attempt was solely based on the descriptions
Tweaked it a bit differently, better?
  • "the British Transit of Venus expedition" Again, assumed knowledge on the part of the reader. "A naturalist visiting the island as part of a British expedition..." or something would perhaps be better
Took the part out for the entire sentence to flow better. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "as had magistrate George Jenner shortly before" Why not chronological?
Restructured the whole sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "These bones were found in caves on the Plaine Coral, a limestone plain in south west Rodrigues.[5] These bones" Repetition
Changed to "they", is that what you had in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ""Nekros" and "psar" are Greek for "dead starling"" No- Nekros is Greek for dead, and psar is Greek for starling.
Added "and", better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "More subfossils found in 1974 confirmed that the Rodrigues bird was a distinct genus of starling." I'm not keen on this certainty; "added support to the claim that" would be better than "confirmed that", and perhaps you could merge this with the following sentence?
Implemented your first suggestion, but not sure about merging the sentences. The bill was known long before 1974, so the sentences are not really connected... FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Until then, the Rodrigues starling was the only Mascarene passerine bird named from fossil material." Subfossil, surely? Or are subfossils a type of fossil? (Technically, I would guess not, but I defer to your knowledge.)
Subfossils are fossils so recent that they are only partially mineralised, or not mineralised at all. So it is both the first fossil and subfossil Mascarene passerine named from such... FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "He suggested that this was the bird mentioned by Tafforet, instead of the one described from the bones found on mainland Rodrigues. He suggested that N. leguati was another variant of Fregilupus." Could this prose be massaged a little?
Simplified it, better? It is a very confusing situation, hehe...
  • "between faunas" Odd
Better now? FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "was smaller compared to other starlings" small compared to, or smaller than those of.
Changed to "smaller compared to those of other starlings", better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "attacked the native birds and tortoises instead" As well as, presumably?
Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally very strong. Sources all look appropriate, but I've not done any spotchecks. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, should be fixed now! FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

God of War III[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2010 PlayStation 3 video game God of War III, the best-selling game in this series and one of PlayStation's most popular game series. This is the article's fourth nomination here. The last nomination was about a year ago. After that FAC closed, I took a break from Wikipedia and only made some intermediate edits here and there. I've recently come back and had this article copy-edited by the GOCE, which was something that was said was needed in the previous FAC. I will respond promptly to any issues or concerns. JDC808 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose
    • "first-person kills" deathcam is trivial and needn't be mentioned.
      • Done
    • "On December 8, Stig Asmussen..." - Really weird way to announce Barlog's departure. You begin with the Asmussen quote and the reader has no idea why you're doing that. Start off by making the point, "Barlog left the studio..." or something similar.
      • Done
    • Put the "interest in a cooperative mode" sentence with the other multiplayer mention.
      • Done
    • What's the difference between "early development" and "pre-release"? Why is the length of the game in one section, but the length of the script in the other?
      • What do you not understand about the difference? They are straight forward. Early development is just that. Pre-release is the few months before it was released.
        • That you moved the game length section from "early development" to "pre-release" suggests they are arbitrary. It's why I put the two questions together.
    • CGSociety link broken.
      • See the archive link (this is why they are there).
        • At the time of the review, webcitation was down.
    • I would move all the trailer talk commentary into release/marketing.
      • Why?
        • Releasing a trailer is not a development milestone, it's a marketing one. It'd also make the Sixaxis stuff sit together. Consider putting the controller stuff together anyway.
    • No need to quote Asmussen to say the trailer is in game. Just state it is in game and reference it.
      • Done
    • There's generally a lot of trivial dates in the article, "On October 28, 2009, it was announced that the Blu-ray version of the film District 9 would include a God of War III demo", "The Blu-ray version of District 9 was released on December 22". I think it very unlikely the reader cares about the press release at all.
    • This review of the soundtrack may be worth a mention.
      • Done
    • You don't mention who actually performs the soundtrack.
      • Done
    • The soundtrack's label seems to be Sumthing Else. Looks like they have some licensing agreement with SCE.
      • Done
    • Why use a niche source like Gamestyle?
      • What's wrong with Gamestyle?
    • "is some next-level stuff" tells the reader absolutely nothing.
      • That's what he says.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • One "particularly inappropriate" puzzle, zero context.
      • He did not explicitly state which puzzle.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • Calling the game "less diverse" is incredibly broad and bland, and the link is broken.
      • That's what he says. See the archive link.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • Consider moving the "most anticipated" awards to the marketing section.
      • Why? It was an award.
        • The awards section generally deals with the game's overall reception. Pre-release awards are essentially the reception of the marketing campaign.
          • I can see what you're saying, but I don't feel that it's enough reason to move this one award.
    • N4G is not a reliable source and I don't think a GameTrailers "Diamond Award" is an award at all.
      • Removed N4G, which happened to include the Diamond Award. I didn't really see a problem with including the award itself, but doing a quick search, I couldn't find a replacement source for it anyways.
    • Who are PS3 Attitude and why do we care?
        • They're a gaming website that posts news regarding PlayStation games.
      • Not all comments are oppose worthy, but taken together, they are. - hahnchen 18:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Some replies above. - hahnchen 00:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
          • A couple more things done. Going to work on the trailer stuff and the quotes that you said aren't "worth quoting" tomorrow. --JDC808 01:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
          • All points addressed now. --JDC808 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Still unconvinced about the reliability/notability of PS3 Attitude.
      • Removed.
    • The "No CGI" section feels clumsy, there looks to be redundancy, you're using a lot of lines to say something simple.
      • I'll work on it.
        • Trimmed back.
    • These articles, & are not used. Was there nothing in those articles, the "Making Of" or "Art of" videos that you felt were relevant to the development section? Camera work, animation and anti-aliasing seem interesting, I've not watched the videos.
      • I had never read those articles before. --JDC808 05:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I've read through the articles. I've added a new paragraph to the development section (and redid the subsections, although I don't know if "Technical" is a good title). --JDC808 18:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • hahnchen 11:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Been too busy, so I've struck the oppose, but haven't revisited the article. Did you watch the videos too? This soundtrack review states that there is an interview with the composers as part of the game's bonus content. (I'm not sure about OSV's reliability) The soundtrack section is pretty much all reception, and offers no composer insight. These articles could help too. [9][10] - hahnchen 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
        • These interviews, particularly about the engine, could be worth a mention.[11][12] - hahnchen 01:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Okay, I'll read over those and see what I can do. --JDC808 06:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

A few points I must raise.

  • The lead. Why must IGN be cited in particular, as the points from the review are generally shared across the reviews. Uncited generalities are allowed in the lead as long as the claims are backed up in the article proper.
    • Because it was IGN who stated those specific points.
  • The opening paragraph of the gameplay section look a little clunky to my eye.
    • The first piece that caught my attention: "The gameplay of God of War III is similar to that of its predecessors. It is a third-person, single-player video game from a fixed-camera perspective.[4] The player controls Kratos in combo-based combat, platforming, and puzzle games, battling foes drawn primarily from Greek mythology (including centaurs, harpies, chimeras, cyclopes, satyrs, minotaurs, sirens, cerberuses, and Gorgons). Other enemies were created specifically for the game." Possibly you could rewrite it as "God of War III is a third-person, single-player action-adventure video game. As with previous God of War games, the player controls Kratos from a fixed-camera perspective in combo-based combat, platforming, and puzzle games. The enemies are a mixture of creatures drawn from Greek mythology and monsters created for the game.
      • Done.
    • The next is the sentence about puzzles: "Although some puzzles are simple, others—such as finding several items in different areas of the game to unlock a door—are more complex.[5]" Perhaps you could specify how many puzzles are simple, and refine the second part into something like "more complex puzzles involving retrieving items from multiple areas."
      • Without playing the game again, I don't have a count of how many puzzles are simple, and I don't believe any sources do either (the ones I've come across do not). The complex puzzle part is trimmed back as per suggestion.
    • The most I can say about the combat system is that... it needs some condensing here and there. I'll leave the exact details up to you.
      • I don't see where it needs condensing. Unless some sentences can become more concise without loosing information (not sure how more concise it could be), condensing it any further is going to lose information and may make things unclear.
  • George Bell (voice actor) should not be linked if there isn't an article for him.
    • Don't see why it's a problem (as an article could be made), but okay.

That's what stood out right now. I'll probably be back for more. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay. --JDC808 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @JDC808:, I can't actually see anything else very wrong. I found some dead links and fixed them for you. In general, I Support this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you and thank you for the broken link fixes. --JDC808 15:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Brachychiton rupestris[edit]

Nominator(s): Melburnian (talk · contribs) and Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an unusual succulent tree native to Australia. Melburnian (talk · contribs) and I have scoured all sources we can find to produce another plant article. It's succinct and comprehensive and tries (hopefully successfully) to balance plain english and exact technical language. Anyway, have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Hi Cas, could you let us know whether or not this a Wikicup entry for you? The bot that used to highlight this is down, so we're on manual for the moment as far as checking goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually might not be eligible as almost all major work done last year. So will leave it off. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by HalfGig[edit]

  • You have one sentence on insects but it doesn't say if these are harmful to the host tree, or anything else about their effect on the tree.
I've found some information on the kurrajong leaf roller and added it. I can't find reports of any damage caused to this species by the pale cotton stainer bug, but I have added that it is a pest of cotton crops.--Melburnian (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any information available about toxins?
The only thing that I could find related to that is nitrate poisoning of stock, which is mentioned under uses. I added a link.--Melburnian (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Images - all own works and with free licenses.

HalfGig talk 13:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support now. HalfGig talk 00:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thx/much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

2012 Budweiser Shootout[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2012 Budweiser Shootout, one of two expedition races of the 2012 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, won by Kyle Busch. I believe that this article has met all the FA criteria and any feedback on this subject is most welcome. Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Z105space, am I right in assuming this is your first FAC? If so, welcome on behalf of the coordinators! Just a procedural note, your article's Peer Review should be closed now that you've nominated here, per guidelines. Pls take care of that ASAP, and feel free to ask for assistance if any difficulty. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - After giving this article a peer review, I believe it is up to the standards of my current FA and (hopefully) future FA. Of course, there are no post-race standings as this is an exhibition race, but the article is complete in all other regards. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Well I promoted this to good article class and since the peer review fixed the remaining issues in this article, I have no reason to oppose. good888 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Interstate 8[edit]

Nominator(s): Rschen7754 02:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been about a year since I've been at FAC, and this time I'm bringing Interstate 8, a road from San Diego to Casa Grande, Arizona. It somehow involves the mafia and plank roads, so it should be an interesting read for one of the main roads between California and Arizona. --Rschen7754 02:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I have reviewed the prose and feel the article meets the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at ACR and determined that all the images check out. Dough4872 05:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919[edit]

Definitely seems to be thorough. I made some edits; as usual please undo if needed. Some additional comments:

  • There are two dead links.
    • Fixed the first one. Unfortunately the Patch article seems to be completely gone, after 2 years of working on this. Thankfully, I found most of the material in another source and changed the references. --Rschen7754 05:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead seems a bit short for this size article.
  • I-8 continues eastward, bisecting the area known as "Hotel Circle" that has several hotels. As the freeway enters Mission Valley, it has interchanges ... Hotel Circle is in Mission Valley, so the order of the description seems misleading.
  • However, the state put its plans on hold shortly thereafter, following several concerns from the public, including state senator Jim Ellis. Not sure a member of the legislature should be described as "the public" in this context. Maybe 'and from' instead of 'including'?
  • While using nuclear power to conduct blasting operations... Wouldn't that be nuclear explosives? In my mind "nuclear power" conjures up electricity generation rather than blasting.

Some of those points are arguable; only the first definitely needs to be fixed to get my support (on prose, as I did not check sources or images). --RL0919 (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review! I'll try and chip away at these over the next few days. --Rschen7754 05:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • All comments have now been addressed. --Rschen7754 05:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Looks good, thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support what seems to be a comprehensive, well-written article. I didn't review sources, but I'm familiar with this freeway and the description section seems accurate. --RL0919 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. JJ98 (Talk) 00:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I reviewed the prose at the A-Class Review and believe it meets the criteria - Evad37 [talk] 10:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The Thrill Book[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Thrill Book was a missed opportunity; a precursor to the pulp magazines that began to specialize in fantasy and science fiction in the 1920s. It's famous now mostly because of that failure, and since it was never common to begin with its reputation has led to it becoming fabulously rare -- one historian commented that a full run of 16 issues would cost about as much as a luxury car. Despite the fact that it is no longer regarded as an sf and fantasy magazine, its reputation means that it gets quite a bit of coverage in magazine history sources, so I've been able to put together a fair amount of detail about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919[edit]

Seems like an interesting subject, and I like the selection of illustrations. I'm not an expert on this and have only had time to give this a surface read, but some initial notes/concerns:

  • I added a couple of categories. As always, revert if you feel I've done harm.
    Those look fine; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • What is the intended WP:ENGVAR here? The magazine was from a US publisher and apparently only circulated in the US, but the dates are all formatted dmy. I don't want to copyedit without knowing.
    It should be U.S. dates; the English dates are just me being careless. I think I've fixed them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'll re-read later and copyedit if needed now that I know what I'm looking for, but I'll call this one handled.
  • The references are formatted inconsistently. Some are shortened refs and some are full cites in the note, some use comma separators and others use periods, some ISBNs are fully separated and some aren't, some of the city locations for books have a comma between the city/state and some don't.
    The intention is to use {{cite book}} for the references, and short form in the footnotes for those; and to use {{cite web}} in the footnotes directly for the web page citations. Is that inconsistent? I'm pretty sure I've seen other articles use this approach, though I'm not a partisan of it and can switch if you have a better recommendation. I've switched one book cite in the wrong format to use cite web, since that reference has a more current web version. I'm not seeing the comma/period or city location inconsistency -- can you let me know which citations you're referring to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    For the comma issue, the first book under References has one, the rest don't. Having the comma would be typical for a US city/state combo. For the shorted vs. full, since all the refs have author names and dates (unlike some cases where a web page might have neither), I do think it would look better to handle them all the same. But it's clear enough once explained that I wouldn't oppose over it.
    The commas are fixed. Re the ref formatting: I'm not opposed to the alternative but if you're OK with it as it stands I'll let it stay the way it is. If you have an example page that does it the way you're describing, please let me know; I'd like to see it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Several current FA nominees do this, such as Night of January 16th, I Never Liked You, and James B. Weaver, if you want to take a look. But as I said, not worth opposing over, so striking this one as handled.
  • Citations 4 and 5 are to broad page ranges (18 and 27 pages respectively). I haven't checked the actual sources against what is claimed, but it seems likely that the citations could be a little more specific than that.
    I'll make them more specific; it might take me till this evening to finish this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    I've divided up the refs to have more specific page numbers, and it was troublesome enough to do that the process has convinced me it's unfair to the reader to give a range of more than four or five pages. I'll try to stick to the more specific ranges in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, marking this one handled.
  • The guidance at WP:REDNOT is to avoid redlinking personal names, so there are several that should probably be delinked, unless your next project is creating those articles.
    Done. It must be years since I last read that guideline, and I wasn't aware of that change; after thinking about it I see the reason for it, though it's a pity in some ways, particularly when the person is clearly notable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    I just noticed this myself recently. Anyhow, striking this one as done.
  • There seem to be a lot of sentences with semicolons that might deserve full separation.
    Yes, semicolons are a weakness of mine. I've eliminated a couple, but please go ahead and fix any others you feel need changing, or let me know which ones to work on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    I'll keep an eye out on the re-read.
    Another editor beat me to the punch on copyediting, so I will let you respond to his comments first. Marking this one handled.

Will await responses (especially on the ENGVAR question) before doing anything more. --RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I've struck anything that seems completely handled. Will re-check for the rest on a second read. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I think everything you mentioned is now dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Support. Sorry it took me a while to circle around on this one, but I think subsequent reviewers have helped keep it moving. After another read-through, I'm now happy to support promotion. --RL0919 (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

  • I appreciate that you have removed redlinks to author names (I understand the guideline, though I think it could be better put...) but any authors/editors with articles should be linked. Have you checked for all of them? I note you hadn't linked a magazine and a novel which both have articles.
    On looking through I just realized I had failed to include some links in the lead, so I fixed those. I can't guarantee I haven't missed anything, but I think anything that should be linked is now linked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "a lost-race in Africa" Why the dash?
    Fixed. I suspect I initially had this as "a lost-race story" and didn't remove the hyphen when I rephrased it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "to contemporary cover art" Ambiguous- it's unclear whether you mean contemporary to us, or contemporary to The Thrill Book
    Rephrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "some writers now long forgotten" I appreciate what you're saying, but I fear that this is slightly too prosaic. How about something (I appreciate that this is probably too wordy) like "writers whose work is no longer read but may have been familiar to readers at the time"?
    Not quite sure what to do here. The source says "The authors featured in the first eight issues are almost entirely forgotten today. Many were ex-dime novelists, like George C. Jenks and John R. Coryell, both of whom penned stacks of Nick Carter stories." How about something like "The contributors included Sophie Louise Wenzel, who later published stories in Weird Tales under the name Sophie Wenzel Ellis, but most of the writers from Hersey's editorship, such as George C. Jenks and John R. Coryell, are no longer well-known names", dropping the dime novel details? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    I actually think the dime novel point is fairly important; it was the hyperbolic "now long forgotten" that made me think twice. J Milburn (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    I used the sentence proposed above, tweaked to mention the dime novels. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    I've tweaked it a little further- how does that look to you? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "manuscripts in inventory that" Is "in inventory" a recognised phrase? Should it perhaps be hyphenated, or changed to "in their inventory"?
    I'd like to keep this -- it's a standard phrasing, as can be seen by googling "manuscripts in inventory" vs. "manuscripts in their [or the] inventory". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "been purchased for it" The "it" here (grammatically) seems to refer to the inventory- perhaps you could change it to "the magazine"?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is Sea Stories worth linking? Love Story Magazine? Clues? Mystery? The Avenger? Odyssey Publications? If they're notable, they should be linked, whether the link is red or blue.
    I haven't linked these because I don't have sources that would justify it. The sf field has more sources for some reason, so any sf magazine is always going to end up with an article, but the other genres are much more patchily covered. These particular ones are hard to search for. I suspect the Westerns are the next best covered after the sf and fantasy mags but I only have one of those reference books, and none of these are Westerns. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "reviewed the remaining Thrill Book manuscripts" Perhaps this could be rephrased so that you don't lose the "The" from the title? (Other instances of this elsewhere)
    This form of abbreviation (and others, such as referring to magazines like Startling Stories as just Startling) is standard in the sources; Murray has "In time, the Thrill Book inventory was forgotten", for example. I'd like to keep this unless you feel it's jarring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "under the name "Denby Brixton"," As written, this suggests the title of the novel changed.
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a particular reason you haven't included a bibliography table?
    I had a hard time seeing how to make it useful -- it's primarily a visual aid, showing how issues are distributed over multiple years, and showing irregularities in publication. It works well with months, or seasons ("Spring 1942") but for publications dated with the day it is a bit clumsier. I thought it would be ugly to have a one-row table, and I didn't think the reader would gain much from it. Do you think it's worth adding? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    No, if you're happy without it, I am too. The explanation seems reasonable. J Milburn (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Category for the publisher location? Also, is there perhaps a scifi category that would be appropriate?
    I added New York. It's already in the defunct sf magazines category, though I'm somewhat conflicted about even that -- as the article says, it's not really an sf magazine at all. I included it in the navbox just because aficionados know about it and would expect it to be covered, but I believe there were other magazines of the era that published more sf. It does seem to have published more fantasy and weird stories than most magazines of the day, so it's listed in the fantasy fiction magazine category too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Generally very strong. J Milburn (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

A well-crafted article, but I have to point up some minor issues to prove I've read it, so here goes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • The Thrill Book was a pulp magazine published by Street & Smith in 1919— as a Brit I get no sense of location in the opening sentence. Perhaps insert New York publisher…?
    I made this "U.S. pulp magazine"; Street & Smith were a New York firm but since they had national distribution I think the U.S. point is the more important one to make. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Quentin Reynold's 1950s history of Street & Smith
  • If his surname is "Reynolds", the apostrophe is misplaced
    It's "Reynolds"; I've fixed the apostrophe. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • was the history written in the 1950s (if so, why not a specific year), or was it about the company during that decade? Depending what you mean, an apostrophe may be needed
    The source says the book was written "some forty years later". I know from other sources that the book was published in 1955, but I don't have a reliable source to hand, and didn't think it was necessary to give the date. I can see that just saying "1950s" doesn't really help, though, so I've cut it, since I mention the forty years gap right afterwards. I've also made it "almost forty years"; technically I don't have a cite for that but I hope it's not controversial. Does that work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Total drive-by comment here, but as a worst-case option, WorldCat confirms the 1955 publication date.[13] Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The format change may also have been part of an attempt to copy the format of Adventure... In addition to the layout change, the contents page was changed to resemble that of Adventure, and a question and answer department, "Cross-Trails", was begun, in imitation of a similar feature in Adventure.[18] — two "formats" in one sentence, three "Adventures", could be tweaked to reduce the repetition
    I've had a go at this but I'm not sure it's quite right yet -- take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Street & Smith cancelled the magazine after sixteen issues; the October 15th issue was the final one— clunky, perhaps Street & Smith cancelled the magazine after the sixteen issue dated October 15th.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Quinn had not yet invented de Grandin himself— not sure what the last word adds other than ambiguity
    Removed "himself" (I assume you meant just the last word?). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 10 3⁄4 in by 8 in — I realise that a US-specific article like this does not need to give international conversions, but if the size corresponds to a named paper size (eg foolscap, A5 and the like) that would help
    It's close to U.S. letter size, which is 8.5 by 11 inches, but I don't think I can use that unless it matches exactly. The source just gives the dimensions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You have consistently abbreviated US states in your references. It would help non-Americans if they could be spelt out
    Done, though I'm not certain I've not been asked to do the reverse in some long-past review. Is there a MOS guideline on this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I look forward to supporting soon, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with your replies and changes. I don't know about MOS, but it seems to me that full spellings just makes it easier. Even I struggle to remember some of the states, particularly those starting with "M" or "W", and I suspect someone who didn't speak English as a first language might have more difficulty, Anyway, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • The images which are on commons should be in a category for The Thrill Book, and if there are more images they can be added to that category, with a commonscat link.
    I've added the category on commons, but I'm not sure what you mean by a commonscat link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also there is a serious lack of online resources linked. There seem to be online indexes available for example. (if there is no suitable then no big deal for passing)
    There's an index here, but it's partial, and the ISFDB doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source. (I have used ISFDB indexes under certain circumstances in the past, but since it's not a complete index I don't think it's a good idea here.) Are you aware of a better index online? The Bleiler index in the references is very complete but I don't think there's an online version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Since this is public domain there should be online versions. There is but this is truncated. if there is none available then of course we cannot link it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
    As with the index I'm not aware of any online versions -- I'd be glad to link to any you know of. It may be that none have been created because the magazine is so rare. There have been two facsimile editions (mentioned in the article); they're only partly previewable on Google Books, presumably at the publisher's request, though they are public domain as you say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note from Ian Rose[edit]

Mike, there seems to have been some commentary on sources but doesn't appear to me that anyone is actually signing off on a source review for formatting/reliability, so you might list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

William of Wrotham[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an obscure English cleric and royal administrator, who was heavily involved in naval affairs in the reign of King John. Although he was called one of John's "evil counsellors" by Roger of Wendover, it doesn't really appear to have been the case. He never was criticized for extortion or anything, and appears to have been a good administrator and official. It's a short article, but he's actually more important than the length of the biography would imply - he had a hand in not only naval affairs, but tin mining also. Has had a copyedit from both Eric and John, and both a GA and A-class review, so it should be in decent shape with prose. I've plumbed every source possible, I believe, so he's comprehensive. Although I'm competing in the Wikicup, this is not an Wikicup eligible nomination - all the work was completed prior to this year. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Driveby comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Is there some reason "c." (for "circa") is in italics? MOS:DATE doesn't require that, and I'm unfamiliar with that style. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Because I most often see it italicised in my sources, mainly. And it was pounded into my head in classes that it was. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's a fairly familiar style to me, too. I think the MOS to follow here is probably MOS:FOREIGN, since that's what Circa is: it notes that one should "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English". I don't really see people use "circa" in the 21st century with any of the frequency that they might use the words provided as examples of common loanwords, so I think we can probably call it "not current" and the italicising is fine. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Looking around the MOS archives, it looks like it comes up from time to time, and real-world usage and guidleines seemed to be mixed. I notice MOS:YEAR, though, says to use "the spaced, unitalicised form". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]


  • I think we need a little more explanation of "evil advisers"; in the body you place this in the paragraph about the conflict with Innocent, but you don't actually associate it. Looking at Roger's text, I think you can at least include the "at this time" description, and you could also characterize them as giving the advice John wanted to hear, which was Roger's point.
    • Added a bit from secondary sources - Roger's not someone I want to interpret without a modern historian to hold my hand (he's very problematic as a historical source). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A separate point: I've always heard this phrase as "evil counsellor"; which a quick Google search seems to confirm is the usual form. If you're going to put it in quotes, any reason not to use that form?
    • I'm quoting from the ODNB article on William - Golding says "named by Roger of Wendover as one of John's ‘evil advisers’ who supported" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Two sentences quite near each other end with "... is unclear"; can one of them be rephrased?
    • One changed to "uncertain". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "He was jointly placed in charge of the mints of London and Canterbury in 1205, along with Reginald de Cornhill, with whom he also shared the collection of the tax of a fifteenth on merchants, a post the two had held since 1202". I think this needs rephrasing: "a post" doesn't have a real referent -- it means the post of collector of the fifteenth tax, but there's no actual noun as the sentence stands. You could fix it with "... with whom he also shared the post of collector of the tax ...", but that's a bit clumsy.
    • I agree the original isn't ideal ... but it's pretty common to phrase things that way in historical writing... maybe "shared the office of collecting the tax"? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "vacant ecclesiastical offices": I assume these were vacant as a result of John's dispute with Innocent? If so I think a few words of context would be good.
    • Not in these cases - they were just vacant for a short while before the king and/or cathedral chapters got around to appointing someone new. It was pretty normal for someone to be appointed to collect the revenues during these situations. None of William's appointments lasted that long, and all except Whitby occurred before the interdict. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the Annals of Dunstable ascribe to John a desire to oppress the Cinque Ports": what does this mean? If the annals are unclear we can't be more specific, but overseeing naval preparations doesn't seem closely connected to any planned oppression of the towns.
    • It does not get clearer than that ... my source says "According to the Annals of Dunstablethe king 'took occasion to oppress the men of the Cinque Ports with great and heavy afflictions'." and Powell cites Norgate's bio of John. Because of how Golding phrases things, I've chosen to attribute it rather than state it as fact. Neither bio of John mentions any such reason or anything about exactions on the Cinque Ports. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In mid-1217, he rejoined the royalist cause": suggest mentioning that John was dead by this time, since many readers won't recall the date of John's death mentioned further up.
  • Maddicott refers to an article on Lydford Castle by A.D. Saunders in Medieval Archaeology, which mentions Wrotham a few times; it's available online, or I can send you a copy if you like. I haven't looked through it in detail to see if anything there is not included, so you may have already read and discarded this.

-- Sources are sound. I checked one for close paraphrasing (it was fine) but that probably doesn't count as a spotcheck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd love the article - I tried to access it and it failed for some reason. I'll get to the others in the next little while. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I've read it - it's mostly information already in the article - the only bits that aren't are some really detailed descriptions of his actions with regards to the stannaries - I'm inclined to think we don't need the details of how William set up the payments of the miners and when the miners needed to pay what. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sent; let me know if you don't get it (I have two different emails for you and am not sure which is more current). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
All the changes look fine to me. I've supported above; nice work, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – A scholarly and highly readable article, as we have come to expect from this source. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. In passing, "ancestor" in the lead looks a trifle odd for something incorporeal, and I wonder if "forerunner" might read more naturally. Perhaps not, and that's my only suggestion; otherwise nothing but praise. Tim riley talk 17:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Changed "ancestor" to "forerunner" as you suggested - I think that's a better word choice, so thanks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

  • I commented on this first rate article at A class, and I have a few more minor points.
  • "From 1197 William was responsible for Geoffrey's lands at Lydford, Devon". "responsible for" is a bit vague. ODNB says "accounted for". Does this mean accounted to the King for the knight's fee due on the estate? If so, I think it would be better to says so.
    • Changed to "From 1197 William was responsible for the collection of revenues from Geoffrey's lands.." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ships dispatched to the coasts in 1204". "coasts" sounds a bit odd to me in this context. South coast or coastal ports?
    • They were guarding the coasts, not so much the ports (as they were also guarding against landings away from the ports ala the Conqueror). Warren just says "dispersed around the coasts in 1204." ... no further clarity on which coasts of England were meant. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
      • It's nit-picking, but coasts still sounds wrong to me. I think you can say "the south and west coasts", but they are part of the coast of England and if you are not specifying which area it should be "the English coast". How about "dispatched to guard the English coast"?
  • In the legacy section you say that Roger of Wendover's account is regarded by modern historians as unreliable, so citing his description of William as an "evil adviser" in the lead, without qualification, seems to me a bit misleading.
    • Now reads "Known to a contemporary chronicler as one of John's "evil advisers"..." It's not that Roger is unreliable on Wrotham being an advisor - it's that Roger's anecdotes and edifying stories are ... suspect. When he's not giving amusing and interesting tidbits (like Matthew Paris), he's reasonably reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your reviews along the way! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. I made no edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Support -- I did stop by wearing my coord hat, with the intention of checking over before promotion, but decided I wanted to tweak the wording a bit. While I don't think that necessarily means I need to recuse, I think I can afford to given we again have three active coords at FAC...

  • Prose and readability fine by me now (pls let me know if you disagree with my copyediting).
  • Not an expert on the period, but content appears as comprehensive as can be expected.
  • I note that Nikki reviewed the image earlier.
  • Reviewed sources for formatting (Mike attested to reliability above) and no issues leapt out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I Never Liked You[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

An awkwardness that would make the merely awkward feel awkward is at the heart of Chester Brown's third graphic novel. It is a significant early development in the history of the form, and in contrast with the dense formal boundary-pushing of Maus, High Society, or Poison River, I Never Liked You is so minimalist that those who didn't know better might think the cartooning that of an incompetent draughtsman.

This nominee died of neglect in its first FAC—hopefully it'll die a more valiant death this round. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


This is mostly there.

  • The word Chet is used 33 times in Synopsis.
  • I think the synopsis should be rewritten by incorporating the characters into it. Currently there are two problems, 1) that Synopsis misses out on some key details, such as the religiousness and the mother's fall, and 2) the Characters section is too repetitive (esp Chet, Sky and Connie). Unlike in Maus#Primary_characters, the characters section here carries no new major insight missing in the synopsis, expect maybe about Chet's mother.
  • How long is the book, page-wise?
    • Depends on the edition. Unlike most comics, Brown's can vary in pagecount. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • A range then? Or the New Definitive Edition pagecount? (in the infobox) My point is that I want to know whether the book is 100 pages long or 1000. The article/infobox gives me no clue about that.
        • I sympathize, but I'd rather go with nothing than something potentially misleading. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You should clarify that Yummy Fur is a comic-book series. Even Action Comics is described that way.
    • Isn't a comic book a series unless otherwise stated? Especially if it's introduced as having issues. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Awkward phrasing: "It also received criticism who saw it", "with what became his previous book".
  • I think you should use the original book cover.—indopug (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not so sure. If the image is supposed to help identify the work, then I don't think the cover of an obscure out-of-print early edition with different formatting is going to be helpful to readers (only to obsessive collectors). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the copyedit and the review! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. Btw, ref 38 for "hide with me" is unnecessary. The ref at the end is enough.—indopug (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support all of my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from RL0919[edit]

I hate the "died from neglect" result -- very frustrating. So here's some low hanging fruit on the sources to help you out before someone does a more detailed review:

  • Citation 34 includes Harvard ref for "Gravett & Thompson 2004". There doesn't seem to be any such source in the list, although there is a source from Gravett and a source from Thompson.
  • There are web sources for Paquin and for Williams, neither of whom appear to be cited inline or mentioned anywhere in the body. Are these superfluous?
    • Fixed these (dropped Paquin and restored inlines for Williams). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

More comments after I actually read it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The Gravett/Thompson ref is still broken. From the history it looks like you partially fixed it, then reverted. --RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda[edit]

(Also here because the death from neglect, and new to the topic:) I like a lot!

  • Synopsis: I find a bit strange that the younger brother is given a name a while after "sons" were mentioned, - also that "excuse after excuse" doesn't belong to the mother's death mentioned just before.
  • Background:
    • As a reader unfamiliar with it, I would prefer to see it before the synopsis.
    • Image caption: I would prefer to see Seth mentioned sooner, because without reading I would have expected an image of Brown.
      • I'd love to put a picture of Brown there instead, but the only images we have of him are bald ones (he had way long hair when he made the book). I've moved the image down a paragraph---is that better? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, now it's across a header. I don't mind, but others might. How about moving it back but caption: "Seth ..., a fellow ..."? ---GA
          • Hmmm ... can you show me what you mean? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
            • The image is partly in the following paragraph. I don't mind, but I have seen review purists ... - Current caption "The artwork of fellow Toronto cartoonist Seth inspired Brown to simplify his own." My suggestion (to be polished): Seth was fellow Toronto cartoonist, whose artwork inspired Brown to simplify his own. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Reception ...: The image would look better on the left, facing "in". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stopping by! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for acting. Will read once more, but may take a few days, vacation ... ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Second round:


  • the term impressionistic, - it seems to have nothing to do with Impressionism, but what is it then? If a quote, it should be marked as such and explained.
    • Right. The sources use "impressionistic", but I suspect they mean that as a synonym for "loose". I've drpped "impressionistic". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I need two readings each time for the sentence starting with "Unhappy" and including "too complex" ;)
  • In "I Never Liked You has had a positive reception", I don't like "has had" too much.
  • The last sentence about the background seems a bit out of place in "reception".


  • "its author Chester Brown's adolescence" reads strange, - and now that it isn't the beginning any more, could be simplified to "its author's adolescence"

Style ...

  • "is amongst the simplest and sparsest in Brown's body of work" could go to the lead as well

That's it. Good read, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Well, thank you very much! The book's a good read, too (and there's also a German edition—under the original title Fuck). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

I will be supporting this, thought it was ready at the first nom.

  • Originally serialized as Fuck in issues #26–30 of Brown's comic book Yummy Fur in 1991–93, it was published in book form by Drawn and Quarterly in 1994. a bit tortured.
    • Does it read better as "The story first appeared from 1991 to 1993 under the tite Fuck in issues #26–30 of Brown's comic book Yummy Fur; it was published in book form by Drawn and Quarterly in 1994."? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It does. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The story deals with the teenage Brown's introversion and difficulty talking to others, especially members of the opposite sex—including his mother, to whom he is unable to express affection even as she lies in the hospital dealing with her schizophrenia. - "deals with" twice, plus long long sentence.
    • I've dropped "dealing with her schizophrenia" entirely; it shouldn't have been there in the first place since it's not made explicit in the story itself. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Brown rearranged the page layouts in the book edition. ie the 1994 reprint we just mentioned?
  • black behind all the panels - the page backgrounds, maybe.
    • Right---the non-panel portions of the page were entirely black. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • conforming to the shapes of the pictures they enclosed in a wobbly free-hand - hard to parse
  • The layout and repetition of panels affects pacing, slowing or quickening scene - should this be a scene that slows or quickens the pace of the narrative. Maybe reword the first half as "The layout and repetition of panels is used to establish pace"
    • I kind of struggled with this, because as a statement it's true of all comics, but it's more obvious in this book because of the unusual layout, and even more obvious if you can compare the serial to the finished book. The finished book feels more naturally paced than the serial did, even though the panels appear in the same sequential order. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hugh Hefner wrote to Brown voicing concern that Brown would feel such guilt in a post-sexual revolution world - such guilt?
  • During hide-and-seek games he often hides from the others in the tall grass and talks with Carrie's older sister Connie - is he talking to Connie during hide and seek? Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, they'd hide together where they knew they wouldn't be found and talk until the others got bored of the game. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've gone through this with c/e's a few times, my quibbles resolved, and am a support now here. Another fine article from mr Turkey. Ceoil (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

2006 UAW-Ford 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

After a successful run with the 2010 Sylvania 300, I present the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, known today as the GEICO 500 for sponsorship reasons. I have done everything I can to bring this article up to the standards of my first FA, and have brought it through all three stages of creation (New article, DYK and GA). I am nominating this because this is the final stage and I believe it meets the criteria. As the article is still relatively new, I expect there to be some kinks that will need to be worked out, but nonetheless, I believe the article is certainly in about as good enough shape as one can expect. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Z105space[edit]

Great article. Only one problem I came across.

  • All mentions of the Chase for the Sprint Cup should be renamed to the Chase for the Nextel Cup as this was a 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series race. Once this has been addressed, I'm happy to support this FA nomination. Z105space (Talk to me!) 18:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support - Since the concern has been met, I see no reason to oppose. Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Support - Checked again for issues, but I could not find any. Therefore, no reason to oppose. good888 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the third nomination; the other two were closed due to a lack of responses/feedback; so please review! The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Thanks! Dom497 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support pending a response to one question, as I have reviewed the previous two nominations and it appears most if not all major issues were addressed there.
In the reception section, the statement, "For safety reasons, construction on Falcon's Fury was done primarily at night," lacks an inline citation directly after it. Is the source for this supposed to be one of the refs that noted complaints about the noise? If so, I'd add an IC after the above sentence.
  • @Bentvfan54321: Citation 21 supports the above sentence. For pretty much all articles I've ever written, I've followed a general rule that if the citation supports two (or more) consecutive sentences and there are no other citations that only support one of the sentences, only put the citation once, at the end. This would avoid overkill of citations. Hope this makes sense!--Dom497 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dom497: Okay, that makes sense to me. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Other than that, the prose is engaging and the article is free of any major, noticeable issues; I'd hate to see this get archived again due to a lack of response. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • I'm not quite familiar with the spelling on these topics, but why is "sky jump" with capital letters?
It's the model of the ride.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you incorporate the box quote in the first paragraph of 'Ride experience'?
Wouldn't doing so push the line for the NPOV policy? I personally think its better to keep the box.
  • Check the external links. It appear there's some problem with refs 16 and Other than that, I can not access BGT Fans website for some reason. I see this is frequently used, but the web's name sounds kind of "suspicious", at least for FA criteria.
I have no problem accessing the websites. Regarding the credibility, I'm only using it to document when things happened withe the support of pictures. I did the same thing with ShieKra (also a FA). Ref 16 is dead but it is archived by WayBack (its already linked in the article).--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • References 59 and 62 are YouTube videos. The uploader of the first is Theme Park Review, but on the second one is Diana Schnellbach, a person unknown to Google, at least. If Schnellbach is not a journalist, I'm afraid you'll have to find alternative on that one.
I've changed ref 62.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I see some Facebook and Twitter refs here and there, but they are from the Busch Gardens Tampa profile. I can not claim whether they are reliable or not, but it's useful to note them if some other has comment on them.
All those links are coming from the official BGT facebook and twitter pages.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Retrohead: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A NOTE TO FA ADMINISTRATORS: Please consider the supports as well as comments addressed from the previous 2 reviews before closing the review. The article has barely changed since the first review (other than issues brought up in the reviews).--Dom497 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

While the coordinators may review earlier nominations to check whether previously unresolved comments have been dealt with, supporting comments don't 'carry over' to a new nom. You are free to leave neutrally worded notices on the talk pages of earlier reviewers to let them know that an article they commented on before is again at FAC, just so long as you do it for all the reviewers and not just those who supported. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

American Arts Commemorative Series medallions[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a rather obscure and unloved series of American bullion medallions produced as a competitor to the very popular South African Krugerrand coins. Though their sale numbers were lackluster, they served as the direct ancestor of the American Gold Eagle, a series of bullion coins which are today extremely popular with both collectors and investors. I worked on this article a few years ago, but personal issues arose and I became unable to be an active participant here for a while. However, I think the article meets the criteria, so I hope that this will be a welcome return to FAC. It is currently a good article. I want to thank everyone in advance for your efforts in reviewing and commenting on this article. Of course, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.-RHM22 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I don't know anything about coins. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to laugh and any of my suggestions.
  • The sales were intended to "[reduce] the U.S. trade deficit, either by increasing the exports of gold or reducing the imports of this commodity", and to "further the U.S. desire to continue progress toward the elimination of the international monetary role of gold.": quotations require in-text attribution
    • You added in-line cites, but this also needs in-text attribution---who is being quoted here? "The source" isn't a good enough answer, as it could be a quote quote in the source. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Oops, sorry about that; I misunderstood your initial point, but now I see what you meant. I've corrected that to state that the quotes from a Treasury source,-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • a large number of suggestions of worthy individuals for the dollar coin that had previously been proposed,[1] which later became the Susan B. Anthony dollar.: a large bumber of worthies later became the Susan B. Anthony dollar?
    • I reworded this by including the information about the Susan B. Anthony dollar in parentheses, but if you're not happy with that, then I wouldn't have a problem with removing it entirely; it's not really necessary to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • It is a bit confusing the way it's introduced. Maybe you could put it in an endnote? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I included a note, but I'm not sure if I've done it correctly, because I never used notes in any of my other articles.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The subjects designated were Grant Wood, Marian Anderson, Mark Twain, Willa Cather, Louis Armstrong, Frank Lloyd Wright, Robert Frost, Alexander Calder, Helen Hayes and John Steinbeck.: it might be best to state what their artistic fields are here, rather than scattering them throughout the text later
  • those honoring painter Grant Wood on the one ounce issue and contralto singer Marian Anderson on the half ounce issue: it might be best to describe the different issues for those of us who know nothing about these things. Are one-once and half-ounce issues to be taken for granted?
    • I changed this to make it clear that I was referring to the one ounce and one-half ounce medallions, but I can add more if necessary.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I meant something more along the lines of "the medallions were issued in half-ounce and one-ounce yada yada". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I split that up into two sentences: "Struck at the West Point Bullion Depository, the medallions were issued in one ounce and half-ounce sizes. The first struck were those honoring Grant Wood on the one ounce medallion and Marian Anderson on the half-ounce piece."-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the Mint announced that a private firm would market the medallions; commodities trading firm J. Aron and Company was selected: did the announcement state J. Aron and Company was selected, or were they selected after the announcement?
  • toothlike denticles: toothlike whut?
    • Haha, that is pretty obscure. It refers to the small designs seen around the rim of some coins, although it's uncommon on modern coins. It's pretty hard to work around that, since it's a word known only to numismatists, so I removed it and replaced it with a description of the term: "Beginning in 1982, this information and small, toothlike designs were added along the inner rim of the medallions, and reeding was added to the edge." Does that sound okay? ('Denticles' comes from the Latin word for 'tooth,' I think, so it's probably a little repetitive to say "toothlike denticles" anyway.)-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Or you could go with "like designs called denticles" to please both layreaders and numasmatists (is that a word?). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I've added 'denticles' in there as well. I should add that to the numismatic terminology article, if it isn't already there.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In an interview with New York Magazine in October 1980, Luis Vigdor, assistant vice-president for bullion and numismatic operations of Manfa, Tordella & Brookes, then one of the largest coin firms in the country, compared the medallions and the efforts to market them unfavorably to the South African Krugerrand.: this is quite the mouthful. Could it be cut up or down?
    • I removed the part of the sentence which mentions that the quote is from an interview with New York Magazine, since it isn't really relevant or necessary to that sentence, and of course it's also cited as such. Other than that, I can't really find any way to reduce the size of the sentence. I think it looks better now, but I'd like to hear your thoughts as well.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Curly Turkey, for your thorough copyedit and suggestions! I've addressed all of your concerns, but I'm also adding a few notes to your above suggestions to explain and make sure they're all good with you.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I've addressed all your further concerns, I think. Please let me know if I missed anything or made mistakes (especially regarding the endnote, with which I'm not very familiar). Thanks again for your time and effort.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm ready to support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ U.S. Senate, p. 93.

Support I probably have some articles on these medallions someplace from my last trip to the ANA library, I mean contemporary ones from Coins and CoinAge but I'll have to look for them, they are on my old laptop, which no longer travels. However, the article is just fine without them. I'll email them to you, but it will be at least a week as I am traveling. Could you shoot me an email via "Email this user"? I think you still have my old email and I can't find yours.

  • "The intent of the act" This sentence should be split at the semicolon.
  • Putting an image to the left of a block quote loses the indented effect and probably should be avoided.
  • I set the two images in the 'multiple image' template, which I hope is a bit neater.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "remain stagnant" maybe "remain unchanged"
  • "Helms gave" ... "Helms goes on" probably the tenses should be consistent.
  • "the Bank omnibus bill" probably either both Bank and omnibus should be capped, or neither.
  • I did some research, and from what I can tell, the official title of the bill wasn't 'Bank Omnibus Bill,' so I changed it all to lowercase.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Manfa" is this correct? I thought it was a longer name.
  • That was a great catch! The correct name is "Manfra." I think that typo was in there since I wrote the article, so it's good that you caught it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That's it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt, for your thoughtful review and support! I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, but I left a few notes above to discuss if not.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:JesseHelms.jpg is tagged as missing author info, and is also missing a date. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that, Nikkimaria. I believe I've updated it correctly, crediting the original image to the U.S. Senate and the upload to Japan01 here on the English-language Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): HalfGig, Sminthopsis84, Chiswick Chap

This article, Cucurbita, is about the genus of plants called squash, pumpkin, and/or gourd depending on local parlance. They are native to the Western Hemisphere. The fruits of this genus are an important source of human food and play several roles in human culture. We've enjoyed working on this for over a year and hope you enjoy reading it. There are many people without whom we could not have gotten this article this far; too many of them to list here. HalfGig talk 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

the tools are reporting it has "Squash (plant)" which is a redirect, but it doesn't. I don't know how to fix this. HalfGig talk 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap looked at this. See this talk page thread. HalfGig talk 13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata[edit]

Good to finally see this article at FAC! I'll post a full review later, but for now a few comments:

  • I noticed that Linnaeus is briefly mentioned at the start of the "Species" section. May I suggest this sentence be expanded to a short paragraph describing his original circumscription, as well as a brief mention of the synonyms listed in the taxobox (which aren't mentioned elsewhere). Also, you could give a direct link to Linnaeus protolog (link here; page # is 1010, not 2010)
    • We'll work that. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Nice correction to the page number! I've added Genera Plantarum because Species Plantarum needs that for completeness. I wondered about mentioning earlier people, like Tournefort, whom Linnaeus is basically copying from. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Good addition, that's pretty much what I envisioned. Sasata (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ref #36 (Kemery 2014) indicates a PDF, but there's no link
    • That's because if you search the title it'll find it but when you click it it instantly gives you a download. I downloaded it and read it but I can't get it to display in a browser. How does one rectify this for the reference? I don't know how. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This is now ref 38. I added two more refs for this. But can 38 be fixed? Can we keep it or not? HalfGig talk 00:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
        • This is now ref 39, but I can't find it now so I've replaced it with another university ref. HalfGig talk 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • missing a conversion for "20–35 cm wide"
  • is dietary fiber considered a nutrient (lead)?
    • Cut, it's mentioned in the article, so not needed in lead. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • missing citations:
  • "Female flowers of C. pepo have a small calyx, but the calyx of C. moschata male flowers is comparatively short."
  • "Cucurbita are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C, potassium, dietary fiber, niacin, folic acid, and iron. They are free of cholesterol."
  • entire paragraph ending with "has significantly different enzymes and chromosomes."
This was all the result of copyediting. They all had refs at one point. I dug them up by going through the history of the article. HalfGig talk 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from CorinneSD[edit]

Further comments by CorinneSD[edit]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

An impressive looking article overall. A few points occurred to me:

  • You need to be consistent as to whether you use the full species name or the abbreviated form, Cucurbita pepo or C. pepo.
I thought if you spelled it out the first time you could use the short form thereafter. Am I mistaken? HalfGig talk 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I am unsure about this, but having mentioned the five domesticated species in the lead, I would have thought all subsequent mentions in the rest of the article should be of the shortened form, C. pepo for example. This is not currently the case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil." - The subject of this sentence is "The Cucurbita genus" and I doubt you could extract much oil or anything else from a genus!
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety, and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds." - Perhaps this sentence could be moved nearer the beginning of the paragraph.
Rearranged slightly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated during Halloween and at events such as pumpkin chucking contests, the Keene Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries." - These events are a bit minor for mention in the lead of an article ostensibly about a genus.
Made the sentence more general; celebration of the genus is however demonstrably widespread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "There is no universal agreement as to how to handle the taxonomy of the genus, as is seen in the number of species listed, which varies from 13 to 30."= This sentence is rather long and rambling.
tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Seed germination in some species of Cucurbita has been shown to be directly linked to embryo axis weight and reserve protein." - this sentence requires some explanation or wikilinking.
tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "pollen load" - ditto.
tweaked and rearranged a little. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "History and domestication" section, the first sentence of paragraph 2 has some duplication with the first sentence of paragraph 3.
Removed the sentence from para 3. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would put the "History and domestication" section near the beginning of the article.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk)
  • Why are the "Reproductive biology" and "Germination and seedling growth" sections part of the "Description" section?
Should they be their own sections or should we make a new section with them as subsections? HalfGig talk 14:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought separate sections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for looking I can get to this later today. HalfGig talk 10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "... the original wild specimen was a small round fruit and that the modern pumpkin is its direct descendant." - Maybe "had" rather than "was".
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Its leaves are 20 to 30 centimeters (7.9 to 11.8 in) wide." -The conversion is a bit over precise.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Leaves have 3–5 lobes and are 20–35 centimeters (7.9–13.8 in) wide." - Ditto.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "All the subspecies, varieties, and cultivars are conspecific and interfertile." - Isn't this a tautology?
Fixed HalfGig talk 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Pumpkins and pumpkin seeds have high levels of crude protein ..." - This might be true of pumpkin seed but I would doubt it is of pumpkin which is 95% water and contains 1.2% protein according to your infobox.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Because of this bitterness that is especially prevalent in wild Cucurbita, in parts of Mexico the flesh of the fruits is rubbed on a woman's breast to wean children." - This sentence is a bit convoluted.
Fixed HalfGig talk 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "... there are occasional reports of cucurbitacin getting into the human food supply and causing illness." - "getting into the human food supply" makes it sound like a contaminant rather than a naturally produced secondary metabolite.
Tweaked. HalfGig talk 22:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cucurbits, which are all members of the family Cucurbitaceae, ..." - This information seems redundant.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "For example, cucurbita are often represented in Moche ceramics" - If you use "cucurbita" here it needs to be capitalised and italicised. Otherwise substitute "cucurbits".
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That looks good. Now supporting this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (A bit biased) Support (because I worked on it a bit myself) -- comprehensive, well-written, careful... what I expect from a FA. Zad68 03:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Fork-marked lemur[edit]

Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 03:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a rarely studied genus of lemur. Information about them is patchy, dated, and sometimes inconsistent. I have completely re-written the article, added images and illustrations, and successfully run it through GAN. I now feel it's ready for FAC. Unless I've missed something, the article should cover everything known about these lemurs. Please note, however, that there is a discrepancy between this article and some of the source regarding the breeding information. Sources published in 1999 or earlier tend to state widely different birthing dates and infant handling because they were based on the account of a single local "informant". This information was inconsistent with what is known about cheirogaleid breeding, and the more recent material cited should be more accurate. Otherwise, the article should be comprehensive. – Maky « talk » 03:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Added. – Maky « talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure? Following your advice and going by what I learned on WikiCommons regarding file types, I added a JPEG and changed it in the article. However, the thumbnail looks worse to me, even after a purge. – Maky « talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the image review. As for the refs, I agree... but wasn't sure where to cut it off since there doesn't appear to be any precedent for it. The template Template:Cite book and others don't seem to cut off long lists, such as editors, and the IUCN template just has a general "contributors" field. The recommended citation from the IUCN shows the entire list of contributors, too. Just let me know where to cut it off and I will. – Maky « talk » 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Also, I added one more illustration, File:Phaner furcifer 1868.jpg. Sorry for the trouble. – Maky « talk » 23:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Cite book automatically goes first author et al. after you put four or more authors in.
I'll do that then. Thanks! – Maky « talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Compare JPG and PNG side by side. The PNG is considerably blurrier, meaning you can't see any of the fur details.
I see what you mean, but the PNG looked smooth (because of the slight blur), whereas the JPEG looks grainy. I guess it's all a matter of taste. Anyway, thanks for teaching me about the difference between PNG and JPEG on Wiki. – Maky « talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Phaner furcifer 1868.jpg - To claim PD-70, you need to know when the author died. This is certainly PD-1923, but without more information on when the author(s) died, claiming PD based on the time since the author(s) died is impossible (if this were 18th century or earlier, I'd let it slide, but it's conceivable that a young person in 1866 was still alive in 1945). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I've switched it to PD-1923 for now. Before I added the image, I thought I had identified the artist as Pieter Willem Marinus Trap (1821-1905), but I started to have slight doubts that he was only the lithographer and not the artist. The original has abbreviated in the bottom corner "Steendr. v. P.M.W. Trap" ("Steendrukkerij van P.W.M. Trap", Dutch for "Lithography of P.W.M. Trap"). It seems like it's his... but does the lithographer count as the artist if not otherwise specified? I've noticed that a lot of artists around that time are listed as both lithographers and artists, so I suspect it's very likely his. If so, it should be PD-old-100. Otherwise there is nothing else to go off of, either on the drawing itself or in the front of the book. Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 06:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not well versed in the relationship of lithograph and author (not as much as, say, Adam Cuerden, who deals with these quite often), but I'd think that, if he was the only one credited, then copyright duration would consider only his lifespan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • First of all, if it's hosted on commons, you cannot use PD-1US-923 for a non-US image. That's not good enough. You can move it to en-wiki, and use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, but Commons requires the image to be PD in its source country AND the US, and only the US has the statutory cutoff at 1923. Oppose for the brief period it will take to fix this: It will get deleted on Commons eventually if unfixed, so this must be done. Now, the thing to remember with books is that the label doesn't need to be on the picture. So let's check the front and back matter. Nothing that appears relevant. As such, we're good. It's well-known that assistants tended to be used for these things, but as long as they aren't credited, they are pretty much the definition of anonymous, particularly this far back, and can be ignored. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your expert opinion. I'm glad to see that all my careful digging and attempt to understand what "Steendr v. P.W.M. Trap" meant have paid off. I have changed the license to PD-old-100 per what you said. – Maky « talk » 18:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Right, there we go. Images are okay (if it had come down to PD-70, you'd have had to use PD-1923 for the US licensing, but PD-100 covers both the US and the source country). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • BTW, Adam, image's fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I take it, then, that you are unaware of commons:Template:PD-old-auto-1923? Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nope, completely aware of it (a combination of PD-1923 and a date feature, which isn't quite PD-70) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I've done my best, by trying to find a new home for the mention of nocturnality. Unfortunately, "strepsirrhine" and "primate" can't be split. I could link them together and point to Strepsirrhini and not have a link to primates. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd hope "primate" is common enough to not need to be linked, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed link to primate. – Maky « talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • who named it - named what? You've been using "they" to refer to the lemurs
Fixed – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • They sleep in tree holes and nests. - most recent subject was "females", implying that only females sleep in tree holes and nests
Fixed – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Good point. It was something I preserved from the original article (before my re-write). It's been removed. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fork-marked lemurs were originally called "fork-marked dwarf lemurs" by Scottish naturalist Henry Ogg Forbes in 1894 and "fork-crowned mouse lemur" by English naturalist James Sibree in 1895. - do we need "originally" here?
Gone. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Per WP:REDLINK, we shouldn't redlink names of people
Didn't know about that one. I use the red links to make sure the first names are preserved for when I go to make the article. Anyway, a few redlinks have been removed, and otherwise I created articles for the others (hence the delayed reply). – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You seem to jump between using "they" and "it" to refer to the lemurs a lot. Please standardize
Very good catch! Thank you. I hope I've fixed it. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (On each side of the mouth, top and bottom, there are two incisors, one canine, three premolars, and three molars—a total of 36 teeth.) - Footnote? Or remove the parentheticals in place of a semi-colon?
I opted for the semi-colon. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The testes of males are relatively small compared to those of other lemurs, and their canine teeth are the same size as those seen in females. - The subject of the previous sentence was "testes", so unless lemur testes have teeth, I'd recommend reworking this sentence
Lol! Fixed, I hope. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There are currently - Per Wikipedia:As of, we should use an alternative phrasing that will not "date quickly".
Good catch. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • More to follow — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I see quite a few duplicate links; you should check for that.
Most of my articles (FAs, GAs, and all) tend to link items in the lead, image captions, and body *independently* of each other. (The reason is that people tend to read the lead only, skim the images only, or skip directly to a pertinent section in the body. I did find a few true duplicates, even by my standards, and they've been removed. If you want to discuss further or name specific cases, please do. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So do I. I still see a duplicate link to Adansonia (the tool also picks up three links to Molar (tooth) and two to anatomical terms of locomotion, but I see what you're doing there) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Removed extra link to Adansonia. Thanks for catching it. – Maky « talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "bleating" call when they have infants. - I doubt the sound itself is "bleating". Per WP:WORDSASWORDS, this is not a word as a word, but a description of the sound. As such, it shouldn't have italics or quotation marks.
I put all the calls named by the source in quotes and italics. If I removed the quotes and italics, should I do that for the other calls, too? Or do I have to judge them individually? – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I take it that they identified it as a bleating noise, and not the noise "bleating". The others (ki, kiu, and kea) are all onomatopoeic representations of the sound and thus alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The source says "Bleating" (quotes and italics), just like with ki, kiu, and kea. – Maky « talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Females have not been observed giving birth in consecutive years - Even in the case of a young dying prematurely?
Sources don't say... sorry. I'm guessing that losing young will result in new breeding opportunities... at the right time of the year only, though. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Shame we can't ref that. Alright. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • These trees are often parasitized by beetle larvae that burrow beneath the bark. - relationship of this sentence and the rest of the paragraph is unclear, suggest removal
Clarified. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Alright, works better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Other nocturnal lemurs are sympatric with fork-marked lemurs, and in western Madagascar, interspecific competition is reduced by restricting activity to specific levels of the canopy, such as using only the highest sleeping sites at least 8 m (26 ft) above the ground. - This long sentence could be split
Broken up. Thank you. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • 50 to 550 individuals per square kilometer - worth having a conversion to imperial? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Conversion added. Let me know if it reads okay to you. – Maky « talk » 22:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That's fine for me. I'm not really sure how the biological articles handle imperial units. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Great work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough review and support! – Maky « talk » 22:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - Excellent article about a difficult topic to find information on. Rlendog (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the read-through and support! – Maky « talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Though I GA reviewed this, I'll have a look again soon, many changes seem to have been made since, and the FAC process seems to be going slowly at the moment. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "while also clumping the other cheirogaleids in Cheirogaleus" Wouldn't "lumping" be more conventional? Never seen "clumping" used... FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
You're right. Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. – Maky « talk » 18:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "and the base tail is the same color as the dorsal fur[24] and is usually tipped in black[4][24] and bushy." Perhaps one or two of these ands could be snipped?
Good call. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 19:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "has also suggested that undescribed varieties may also exist elsewhere on the island." Double also, could perhaps be snipped.
You're finding lots of these little gems. Thanks for the careful eye! This has been fixed. – Maky « talk » 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh, at this point it's just, uh, ant-loving... I'll no doubt support when I've read it through. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the effort. After the article Lemur passed FAC, someone found an obvious typo two years later. Some are just bound to slip by, but I'm glad to see that you and the other reviewers are catching them. It's just one of those things about the human brain—it's specially wired to fill in the gaps when our attention is overloaded and omit extraneous details—all before any of it is passed to the conscious mind. (Read about the Invisible Gorilla Test.) Hence all the duplicated or omitted words and other weird typos, even after I carefully proofread. – Maky « talk » 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I read the rest, and no gorillas. Incidentally, "half-apes" (halvabe) is the common Danish term for Strepsirhini... Unlike English, the word for ape and monkey is the same... FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments - looking good - couple of quibbles: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Males females usually form monogamous pairs, and females are dominant. - grammar - also consider some way of not having two "female" in one sentence.
Fixed. Thanks for spotting the typo! Let me know if it's better. – Maky « talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The source of this specimen is thought to be Antongil Bay, but remains speculative. - "speculative" always makes me think of the one doing the speculating, not the object.......
Also fixed. Clearer? Anyway, thanks for taking a look! – Maky « talk » 05:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

otherwise looking fine. hence support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s) I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the set of Japanese percussion instruments called taiko. They have an ill-defined history in terms of their exact origins in addition to a mythological origin story. The usage of the instrument changed greatly through Japan's history, particularly just after WWII with the work of percussionist Daihachi Oguchi, who created a performance style involving several types of taiko and multiple players. This style is now very much the norm in taiko performance as popularized by groups such as Kodo. Construction of the drums and components of taiko performance are explored in-depth. The article also goes into detail about taiko outside of Japan (such as in Brazil) in addition to its role in social movements as explored in contemporary academic literature.

Curly Turkey, GermanJoe and others left very helpful feedback in the previous FAC discussion, which was closed as some matters required more thorough investigation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I JethroBT has addressed all the issues I had in the last FAC and on the talk page, so I support this nom (though, as the nominator knows, if I had my 'druthers I'd have most of the kanji kicked out of the body). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I've just kicked out some more what with the glossary there and all. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg: since Japan does not have freedom of panorama for artistic works, you should explicitly indicate that the work itself is now PD. The tag you've currently got indicates that the artwork is fair-use, which I don't think is what you mean - rather it's the photo that is non-free. This is further confused by "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain" - if that is true, why is this fair use at all?\
    Done, with some issues. The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain Is that text automatically generated? I don't remember writing that myself. The photograph is definitely not under a free license, as you said, and is owned by the Tokyo National Museum. I'll be removing this line. I have indicated that the work itself is PD in both Japan and the U.S., but with the non-free tag, it's produced incompatibilities that I've been unable to resolve. Does it just need to be left this way? I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    This is one possible solution, or you could explore alternative tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Uzume.jpg: if this photo was taken in Japan, again the licensing status of the artwork itself should be indicated
    Checking... Information on the artwork itself is not immediately available and requires a little digging... I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    I've been unable to find any information on the statue itself in terms of its creator or the year it was built, so I think it's best to remove the photo for now. I've been unable to find a suitable, free replacement image that has the necessary information. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I suggest you examine the consistency of reference formatting before a source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Can you be more specific about the consistency of the referencing format? Should things like websites and news articles also use the sfn format, even if they are just cited once rather than multiple times across multiple pages? I don't have a good idea of what's expected here; my thinking was that books would be more suitable for sfn, but using sfn for web content and news would not serve any useful purpose beyond the normal ref tags. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is that similar sources should look similar. Under that rule, using sfn for books and another option for websites/news articles is fine. Problems occur when books and websites are not consistent with other books and websites. For example, some books include locations and others do not, or sometimes you include publisher for newspapers and other times not. There are also things that, while consistent, are errors: for example, Tokyo National Museum is a publisher not a work, and so should not be italicized.
I see, that makes sense. I'll tidy these up today. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: As I'm going through these, one thing I will note is that Template:Cite news recommends the following for the publisher line: Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher) This is the case for many news publications here, such as the Japan Times or NYT, so it makes sense that there is some inconsistency in this regard. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Done. I've standardized a number of matters such as publisher info on books, full page numbers for journal articles, and designating magazines vs. journals in addition to removing the via=JSTOR parameter in citations given that I provided the identification number using jstor=. I've added these in for sources that I obtained using JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - only a few minor points remaining:

  • "[Den] was also known for developing a communal living and training facility for Ondekoza on Sado Island in Japan, and had a reputation for its intensity and broad education programs in folklore and music." - Is "Den" the first or last name? Use last name (or the Japanese equivalent) throughout.
    Done. "Den Tagayasu" is actually a name the performer created for himself, and it appears that Den is the last name after some checking. Reliable sources like Taiko Boom refer to him as "Den," ([14]) so I'll adjust references to him as "Den" accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "He is the recipient of awards recognizing the cultural value of his work." - The sentence is a bit short, "awards" could use some qualifier (worldwide? which kind of awards? ...). Just a brief addition needed to fill the sentence.
    Done. It seemed easier just to provide what the awards were, specifically, so I did. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounding nitpicky, but fair-use rationale of File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg needs the "n.a." parameters filled (on FA-level):
  • "Commercial opportunities": check other non-free art images for example phrases.
  • "not replaceable": you should indicate, why this specific image is not replaceable with another image for the same encyclopedic purpose.
Done. @GermanJoe: All of your above comments have been addressed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Other images have been reviewed already, no need for duplication.
  • I'll leave a full source review to the experts (cleaned up a bit). GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support (confident, that a final source review will show only minor issues, quickly fixed) The article covers a broad topic with a lot of necessary detail, but stays accessible throughout with a clear and logical structure. Unavoidable Japanese and music terminology is put into context and supported with additional Wiki-links. Sources appear to be reliable (on a quick glance), content is thoroughly referenced. Very nice article on a difficult topic. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Trinity (nuclear test)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the very first nuclear test, and the most famous. I promised last year that I would do my best to get it through FAC in time for the 70th anniversary on 16 July 2015. It has been nearly ten years since its previous nomination. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check consistency of wikilinking in citations
  • Compare FNs9 and 37
  • FN49 should name the speaker
  • FN52 et al: should be "Restricted Data" not "Restricted data" (and why do FN55/105 include subtitle but the others not?), and should include publication date
  • FN70 should italicize publication, and the source site has more details on the original publication (page numbers, etc) that could be included
  • FNs73, 86, 126, 127 are incomplete
  • FNs76, 103 need publisher
  • Compare FNs 26 and 85
  • Compare FNs 92 and 93
  • FN132 has a formatting error
  • Bainbridge 1975 publication shouldn't include quotation marks, italics are sufficient
  • Some books include locations, others don't
  • DC or D.C.? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The article is called "Washington, D.C.", so we'll go with that. All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

User SkoreKeep disagrees: "DC, without periods, is the (ANSI/ISO standard) designation for the district, just as MD is Maryland and NJ is New Jersey". So standadised on that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


  • "))" (multiple): MOS frowns on this.
    I'll take your word for it. I'be reverted back to the original form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "with Bethe stating that he was swayed with his authority over a more junior member": I'm not sure what that means.
    One of those odd ones where you have to think about, and once you follow it, are unsure why you had to think about. Rewritten thus: Bethe's choice of 8 kt was exactly the value calculated by Segrè, with Bethe stating that he was swayed by Segrè's authority over that of a more junior member of Segrè's group who had calculated 20 kt. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "A number of factors went into the choice of date and time. Most were meteorological. ... It was therefore scheduled for 16 July, the earliest date at which the bomb components would be available.": The last sentence seems to contradict the first two.
    Well spotted. Deleted the first two sentences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours.": ?
    Part of a caption left over from a deleted image. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced, which together with diet questionnaires, will attempt to close this gap": IMO "together with diet questionnaires" raises questions that aren't answered (such as, why isn't it considered part of the study?). Could that part be omitted?
    Yes. I think it is more comprehensible as: In 2014 a National Cancer Institute study commenced, which will attempt to close this gap. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited part of this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you once again! Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support with a few small comments:

  • The McDonald Ranch House could use a sentence or so to explain that the government seized it.
    Added. When I bring an article up to featured, I normally create a "spin off" article. In this case it is McDonald Ranch House, which is itself a GA. It has its own spin off: Niles J. Fulwyler. Like most Americans during World War II, the ranchers strongly supported the war effort until the government asked them to make a sacrifice. Then it was, "why pick on me?" The government acquired the land by condemnation (in Australia, we would say "resumption"), a process called eminent domain. The MacDonalds, for example, held 640 acres (260 ha) of patented land and grazing rights on 22,535.87 acres (9,119.94 ha) of Federal and 4,468.34 acres (1,808.27 ha) of state land. Ranchers were paid for the land they owned, and in 1942 Congress amended the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 to provide for compensation for ranchers whose permits were cancelled. The government suspended the grazing rights in the area for the duration, as the War Department was unsure as to whether the land would be required for military purposes after the war. Only in the 1970s did condemnation and cancellation replace lease and suspension at White Sands. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I thought "amongst" was British English and "among" was American. Could be wrong about that.
    No, they have the same meaning but different usage. We use them both. I found an Oxford Dictionaries article on Abolishing angst regarding among versus amongst which says that "amongst is comparatively rare in US English but ... this spelling is by no means unknown across the water. However, many authorities (such as Garner’s Modern American Usage) and language blogs state that, in US English, amongst is now seen as old-fashioned, and even 'pretentious'." I have switched to "among", but it reads awkwardly to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Very nice article. I hope to see it on the Main Page soon. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review! I am hoping that it can be promoted in time to run on 16 July 2015, the 70th anniversary of the event.

Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Victoriaearle

This article is interesting in part because it reveals the art historical process; the people who make the final attribution decide how many millions of pounds a painting is worth (that would be huge bunch, in this case). More importantly 15th century paintings of this quality are invaluable and moving windows into lives from the distant past; that reach back and introduce people from far away centuries. Hope ye enjoy reading the page as much as we did writing it.Ceoil (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

  • The article uses both American and British English spelling (color vs colour etc). This should be consistent. Aa77zz (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a discrepancy between the figure caption and the text for the dimensions of the Philadelphia painting. Is it 12.4 x 14.6 cm or 12.7 x 14.6 cm? Aa77zz (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the c/e. Fixed the 12.4 mesurment; combing through for US spelling. Ceoil (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Aa77zz, thanks for noting (and for the copyedit!). I've been through top-to-bottom to weed out what I can but don't always recognise/recognize the discrepancies. Do you know whether St. should be with or without a full stop (it takes a full stop in AmEng). That's one inconsistency I've found. Victoria (tk) 19:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
No full stop/period for St in British English - and below: "gray" is less usual but ok. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay removed all except from Little Flowers of St. Francis which made it turn red. If it's a problem will fix that later. Thanks for explaining; I thought you'd mentioned this another time, as well. Victoria (tk) 13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
At the moment there are 6 uses of "color" (or derivatives) of which 2 are in quotes and should stay. There are 3 occasions where "colour" is used. In addition, if you want British spelling:
enameled -> enamelled
mollusk -> mollusc (may be optional)
fibers -> fibres
gray -> grey
The extract from the will is also quoted in Weale's Hubert and John Van Eyck, their life and work 1908 page 131 available here. He has "Sinte Franssen" with an extra "e" - I've no idea if this is correct. Aa77zz (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for those. I checked enamaled in the source (it's a quote) and I transcribed it correctly. I had noticed the difference between Weale and Dhanen's orthography and decided to use Dhanens' version. I've double checked just now and she does write Sint-Franssen, with a hyphen. We got grey and fibres and somehow with your help managed to sort out the color / colour issue. Victoria (tk) 00:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
enameled -> enamelled is now gone from the text. The others fixed. Victoria (tk) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria! Victoria (tk) 16:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod[edit]

  • Lead could do with some streamlining; I've done a bit.
    Ive tighted this a bit now. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "X radiograph analysis dates growth rings in the wood of the Philadelphia panel to between 1225 and 1307.[39]" - don't we mean dendrochronology, as Klein's title suggests? Or do we need x-rays to see the rings? Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    Corrected. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Johnbod; leaving these to Ceoil to work through. Victoria (tk) 13:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh dear; the article has had over 100 edits since I last commented, so I can't follow the changes, but the lead has got worse. You need to begin with clear statements of where the paintings are, which is the bigger, etc. Then comparison and contrasts. Don't start by saying they are "nearly identical" when one is over twice as large as the other - my change here has been reverted. Losing all the refs from the lead is probably a mistake - things like "weak" just need a ref imo. Johnbod (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
We've both tweaked the lead. Victoria (tk) 01:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's moved on a good bit. I need to find the time for full comments. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think you might be adding further comments any time soon, Johnbod? Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Aah! If I haven't by Monday, then probably not. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Reflective water surfaces were another typical van Eyckian innovation, one he seems to have mastered early and which requires a considerable degree of artistry." - Turin-Milan Hours worth mentioning here I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Rules were generally relaxed for lay members; the Confraternity of the Dry Tree lacked possessions but the chapel was lavishly decorated." What's the point here? It was a lay confraternity, a mixture of prayer group and dining club, like the modern Catenian Association or others; all or nearly all the members were lay, weren't they? The organization may have lacked major assets but the members certainly didn't. Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point & cut. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " Infrared reflectography found base layer of paint overlaid with hatching and fine brush strokes. " grammar. one or many? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, fixed. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The most important factor in the attribution of an old master is the date of completion." I know what you mean but it reads oddly Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "There are three possibilities; the panels are placed within van Eyck's lifetime and are originals; they were completed by workshop members, after his death, from a left-behind underdrawing; or they were created by a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of early Eyckian motifs." Don't know what the ref says, but various further options suggest themselves - in particular "the panels are placed within van Eyck's lifetime and were completed by workshop members" (ie not after). "left-behind" reads a bit informally; sounds like he forgot to pack it coming back from holiday. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Rephrased "left-behind". The refs got shoved around a bit there and at one point Harbison was used as a source, so hoping Ceoil (yes, pinging!) will take a look, because I don't have that source. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Opinion in the mid-20th century favoured a workshop member; Erwin Panofsky admitted "flagrant heresy" when he expressed doubt with the attribution to van Eyck.[38]" I think Curly has spotted the lack of clarity here. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Have reworded but it needs checking. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Checked? Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "....placed the two paintings in an unattributed category. She mentions Panofsky's dispute as by a follower of van Eyck, and she notes the similarity of the landscape boat scene to passages in works known to be from workshop members, in particular the motif in a depiction of Saint Anthony now in Copenhagen." needs decoding! Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Attempted to decode. She hedges - greatly. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " In the end she believes the attribution to van Eyck rests entirely on Anselme Adornes' will.[48]" which we haven't been told about yet. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Mentioned in the lead. I suppose it could be cut here, but thinking maybe the entire Dhanens section could go because not sure what it adds. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Prado image needs more coverage. It has significant differences in the composition. "It seems to follow the Philadelphia panel as it was before the later additions were removed." - have we been told about these? Don't think so. I can help with basic catalogue details if needed. Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Personally I think I'd move Provenance higher up. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • the Adornes are "patrician". If literally so, link to Patrician (post-Roman Europe), but I didn't know that Bruges operated a proper, legally defined, patriciate at this point (it may well have done). Or is it just saying "rich"? Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Nah, cut. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "in the fashion of the van Eyckian ..." just "Eyckian" more usual I think (not sure). Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, seems to be and was used inconsistently (thanks for noting!). Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 02:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fry quote "was considerably larger at the top," needs a [once] for clarity perhaps, or a longer quote? Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. Will go into history tomorrow and pull out the longer quote. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, added [once]. The longer quote already got put back and that's what he wrote in 1926. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd definitely make the exhibition section a sub-section of Provenance. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe more later. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time. I've done the ones I can that I have sources for. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Johnbod I've given some thought today today to the attribution section and wondering whether it should be rewritten chronologically by who said what when, because at the moment it's a little confused. But - the sources, too, are confusing. I'm surprised to see Borchert (in 2008) still saying it's a workshop member and that JvE worked on Turin-Milan Hours late in his career. Also, I thought about removing Dhanens completely but decided against. Basically I'm on the fence in terms of how to deal with this and would like to wait until Ceoil surfaces. If he doesn't, then I'll do what I can there, but it involves re-reading all the sources and will take some time. Sorry, this is hedging, but it's the best I can do. Also, haven't gotten to the Prado painting yet either. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I've reorganized the "Attribution" section to discuss dating first (Phila & then Turin), and then goes on to discuss attribution. The problematic "there are three possibilities" section is now at the bottom and might still need some tweaking. As for the Prado, it confuses me to be honest, so not a lot I can do there. Victoria (tk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod: Can you please comment on the status of your remarks and where you stand on the article? --Laser brain (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
All done (by Victoria), except as noted. Really I'm pretty much ready to support, but a couple of points should be looked at by Ceoil. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to undo any of the copyedits I've made.
  • In the lead it would be best to clarify that "the wounds" means "stigmata"
  • Done. Victoria (tk) 23:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead doesn't need those citations, per WP:LEADCITE
Debatable; but there are probably inconsistent levels of citation. Either fewer or more are needed. Personally I'm happy either way. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Had submitted to DYK (unsuccessfully) and remnant of that attempt. Now gone. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The work in Philadelphia is generally attributed: this comes out of nowhere; wouldn't "the smaller panel" be better at this point?
  • Done. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A recently reconstructed: how recently?
  • Will get back to this: the research project and restorations should be mentioned in the lead - leaving for Ceoil to do. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Added to lead. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "glass-containing bread": can any explanation be given for this?
  • Nope, but I assume 15th century sandpaper. Can remove if you think necessary but I like the concept. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, if no explanation exists, that at least should be stated so readers don't go scouring the internet for nonexistent explanations. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Took it out. Victoria (tk) 22:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Adoration of the Mystic Lamb of God" panel of the Ghent Altarpiece : no date for this one?
    Mentioned as before 1432 now, I see. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The representation of Christ is of a seraphic vision: is there anything good to link to here?
  • from the rock face "intersecting the fossils to reveal cross sections of the shells in side profile".: quotes must be attributed and followed by a inline cite (even if the same cite follows later in the paragraph)
  • Done. Victoria (tk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Have never done this and in others don't follow that convention either. Most style guides (MLA, etc., say to quote at the end of the cited material) but will follow consensus here. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Struck my comment. Quotes about to be cited. Victoria (tk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Got some; not all. Hopefully Ceoil can get the others. Victoria (tk) 14:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • to which Anselme Adornes belonged: who?
  • We need to introduce the Adornes family's tie to these paintings in the lead. Leaving that to Ceoil. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • mentioned in lead; explained later. Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In this depiction he sees "a man like a seraph having six wings, standing over him with hands outstretched and feet joined together, fixed to a cross. Two wings were raised above his head, two were spread out for flight, and two veiled the whole body": again, we need attribution. Is there some reason this needs to be quoted?
Many Wikipedians set the bar for what "needs to be quoted" too high, imo. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I quoted it because I'm a pagan and don't always understand Christian symbols, because I like it, and because I was afraid of straying too far to the source. Can be completely rewritten if required. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The only requirement is for attribution. I'm smply one of those with a high bar for "needs to be quoted", as quoting draws attention to the quote itself, which I feel is often WP:UNDUE. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Would like to keep it. It's an important concept imo. Basically the entire point of the painting. How often does a six winged seraph christ appear in front of someone? Victoria (tk) 22:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

outdent: I've moved discussion to article talk so we can move on. Victoria (tk) 03:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • which was further expounded: what was further expounded?
  • Trimmed and reworded. Victoria (tk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Quote re seraph, vision, stigmata now attributed to Thomas of Celano (who wrote it in his hagiography of St Francis) from a source that had been bookmarked to be added. Hopefully this helps. Victoria (tk) 01:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • on the basis of the pointed iconography: meaning van Eyk avoided pointed iconography? If so, this should be made explicit.
  • I've stopped just before "Research". Ping me if I forget to return. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking the time to read and comment; these are useful. Victoria (tk) 13:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Cheers Curly. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I'm copyediting while I review, of course treat those like any other edits. I will have to review this article in several sessions. I'm not at all familiar with this area, so please don't make changes merely to shut me up, I will accept a reasonable response too... On the other hand, that makes me stop as soon as I don't understand something from context, so I hope I can add some value.

  • Lead:
    • odd to explain that the third painting is in the Prado when the location of the first two has not been mentioned – dealing with this may make the latter "Philadelphia and Turin" comment moot. Perhaps extend the first sentence a bit? "... two nearly identical 1428–32 paintings, in Turin and Philadelphia."
      Did this. Ceoil (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not really seeing the landscape as "expansive". There are rock outcrops quite close to left and right with a city in the background to centre. Do sources support this adjective?
      clarified. Ceoil (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Description / Material:
    • Philadelphia and Turin are mentioned here without any previous mention of which painting is where. This comment is, I realise, a bit unfair because the details are in the captions for the two adjacent images, but I looked at the images and did not read the captions before reading the main article – I imagine many readers will do the same.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • It will I think be clearer if there are separate paragraphs for each painting and if the order follows the order of the images, thus move the last sentence to a new paragraph at the start of the section.
      Thinking about this. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      Prefer not to split. It's written in a compare/contrast block pattern (instead of point-by-point). Block pattern can have both in the same para. Victoria (tk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      OK, struck that part of the comment. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      Re text order following the order of the images. The smaller (Philadelphia) version is generally considered the first and, for the most part, the text is Phila → Turin blockstyle compare/contrast. There are a few places where that needs to be fixed btw - but can't get to it at the moment. The problem is that formatting the smaller image above the larger in the lead might not work, imo. So it's a problem that needs some thinking about. It's a very good point though. Victoria (tk) 21:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks for the careful response. That is a good reason for arranging and ordering the text as you have, and yes the presentation of the images will not work the other way round, so I agree with leaving this as it is at present. Striking this point. --Mirokado (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • "the parchment surrounding the image": it may be clearer to say, earlier in the sentence, "The small Philadelphia panel is painted with oil on vellum mounted on parchment" (or whatever is actually the case) since otherwise "the parchment" is a surprise to the reader.
      Done Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      Please check my subsequent edit, particularly the resulting placement of the ref callout after "vellum" in the middle of the sentence. --Mirokado (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      Fine by me. Ceoil (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • second image caption: "Oil on vellum on panel" does not mention the parchment...
      Addressed Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2014 (UT

These are very astute and very welcome observations Mirokado. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • References, citations
    • Worldcat lists the authors as "Rosa Giorgi; Stefano Zuffi" for Zuffi, Stefano. Saints in Art. Los Angeles: Getty Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-89236-717-2 . They are not always correct, please can you check? --Mirokado (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      I have a copy of the book, and see now that Zuffi is series editor, even though on the inleaf his name is most prominant, Giorgi mentioned only half ways down the page, not as author, but have confirmed otherwise. Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • There is no citation for the "Borchert (1991), 86" short note: should that be Borchert (2008)? --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      Got that. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Lots of duplication of the Rishel (1997) citation. Can the chapter citations just say "In Rishel (1997)."? --Mirokado (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      It's bulky and I'm not crazy about it but it's a compilation of essays, each written by a different scholar, each attributed in-text, so those authors need to be visible in the bibliography/sources. The FAC criteria for consistent bib formatting doesn't give much room for movement (i.e no opcits, no ibids, no entry that's formatted differently than the others). The only solution is to only mention Rishel as editor, ignore the authors' names, but I don't see that as viable. Welcome advice regarding this. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      This is basically my thinking too. Its not ideal, but preferable to merging wholesale. Ceoil (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I meant retaining the short notes as at present, with individual author citations for the chapters, but referring to the whole book for editor and publisher details, with "Rishel (1977)" exactly the format used elsewhere to refer to a full citation, thus:
  • ...
  • Butler, Marigene. "An Investigation of the Philadelphia 'Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata'". In Rishel (1997)
  • Borchert, Till-Holger. Van Eyck. London: Taschen, 2008. ISBN 3-8228-5687-8
  • ...
  • Giorgi, Rosa. Saints in Art. Los Angeles: Getty Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-89236-717-2
  • Klein, Peter. "Dendrochronological Analyses of the Two Panels of 'Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata'". In Rishel (1997)
  • ...
  • Rishel, Joseph. Jan Van Eyck: Two Paintings of Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1997. ISBN 0-8763-3115-0
  • Smeyers, Maurits. "The Philadelphia-Turin Paintings and the Turin-Milan Hours". In Rishel (1997)
  • ...
    • It would be nice to do it that way and perhaps I'm taking the concept of consistency to an extreme (you clear!), but i.,e in Early Netherlandish Painting we wrote out the many chapters in Ainsworth in the sources, and it's that way in Hemingway pages, i.,e the essays from Wagner-Martin in Big Two-Hearted River. Shall we ping Nikkimaria for her opinion? She's the expert! Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      Yes I was thinking that it would be better to check this with "the powers that be". This review would not be the right place for an extended discussion, so having made the suggestion I will accept whatever you and the delegates decide. @Nikkimaria: please comment. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      If done consistently either option would be acceptable, provided the full details for Rischel were included somewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks Nikkimaria, I've redone with full details for Rishel included once, and with "In Rishel" for the separate author/chapters. Hope this works. Victoria (tk) 13:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        And thank you, Victoria, for making that change. Now striking this comment. --Mirokado (talk) 07:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Looking at both the Worldcat entry and the illustration of the book cover there, it looks as if the book title should be as above, colon after Eyck and without the colon in the middle of the actual painting title. --Mirokado (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      Title fixed. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks. Sorry, I need to ask again about the colon after Francis. It doesn't appear anywhere else in the titles of the paintings here or in the Worldcat listing for that book. The illustration of the cover shows a line break after Francis but that seems more like cover artistry, since the whole painting title without colon is italicised. The online search function strips the colon and doesn't display the match, so I could not check inside the book. A brief "it has a colon on the title page" or whatever would suffice if the colon is correct, but in that case the single quotes around the whole title (reflecting the italicisation on the cover) might not be. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      It's a copy / paste error, missed earlier. Thanks for the catch. Fixed now. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Katherine Luber's contributions to the Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin were published in a volume which is available via the Internet Archive: Recognizing van Eyck. Can we add urls to the citations, for example by linking the chapter titles to the start of each chapter? --Mirokado (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I've linked the "Forward" that I took from there, but until this went to FAC didn't know it was available at and worked from separate downloaded hardcopy files for the others. Will have to go through and check page numbers. If they all match, then we should probably sort out the Luber a, b, c. That will take a little time, and I'm not totally convinced it needs to be done. If Ceoil read it from there, then might be easier for him to do. Victoria (tk) 16:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
        Well done for thinking about page numbers. They are out-by-two in the archive navigation, because the archive counts the front cover sheet as pages 1 and 2, and out-by-one with respect to the number in the url since that starts at 0! We should probably retain the printed page numbers in the references. It would be good if we can have the link to the archive somehow as well, though. --Mirokado (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
        • The link to the "Forward" might suffice, because it gets us to the document? Thanks for checking the page numbers! I had planned to change all those, was worried about page numbers and in the end decided to stick with the sources in hand. Thanks too for fixing my mistakes! Still not fully recovered, hence a bit of a slow down here. Victoria (tk) 23:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
          Struck above. Now linked to the book's title, which I think is better. Victoria (tk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
          Thanks, yes the book title is better. Striking now. --Mirokado (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Attribution
    • they were created by a highly talented follower based on pastiches: is "pastiche" the correct word here? Looking at pastiche the phrase would seem to mean "they were created by a highly talented follower based on works themselves imitating the style or character of van Eyck". Can we clarify this somehow? If we do use "pastiche" we should wikilink it.
      Yes but I dont want to go down the road of "tropes" Ceoil (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      That article is quite interesting and strong. I like the differention between parody and tribute; I has hesidant for that reason. Linked and rephrased as from "a highly talented follower compiling a pastiche of early Eyckian motifs". Ceoil (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks, that is clear now. --Mirokado (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • when he expressed doubt with the attribution of Jan: probably "attribution to ..." is better. Is the use of "Jan" here because Panofsky preferred another van Eyck (Hubert?) as the author? If so, it may be better to say who he meant explicitly.
    • For a period ...: "For some time ..."?
    • x-ray analysis ... design ... Infrared reflectography ... extensive underdrawing: is a distinction intended between "design" and "underdrawing"? If so, what? What is the difference between the two techniques mentioned in terms of what they reveal?
I would think they are the same thing, maybe Johnbod can shed light. Ceoil (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree that Johnbod might be able to shed light (no pun intended!); but, yes, the two techniques seem to be different. See Butler, page 30 (mentions X-radiograph) and page 40 (mentions reflectography). I remember reading about reflectography but need to search the sources to find the definition. It was interesting. Anyway, will come back to this. Victoria (tk) 02:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I meant between "design" and "underdrawing"....Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree those are much the same; the scientific techniques are different, revealing different things, but I'm a bit vague. Infrared reflectography shows carbon black, much used in undredrawing, while x-rays pick up metal, in particular, white lead in paint, silver or lead point in drawing. Think that's right. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Adding; on page 29, here Butler lists the investigative techniques and reads to me as though each one is different. Victoria (tk) 02:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that the IR revealed further details of what the X-rays had first indicated, I think the second sentence can be clarified by adding "further": "Infrared reflectography further revealed the extensive underdrawing beneath the original paint;".
Yes, I've added this. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
It would be helpful to explain what, and how, extra detail was revealed by the use of IR, if that can be done fairly concisely. --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The operative word is concision. The sources will need a revisit and then a decision in regards to the best placement. The technical explanations are lengthy and in the end we decided to summarize, but there's plenty of room for expansion, especially giving the importance of the research project. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Have made a small clarification in this edit. Victoria (tk) 13:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
    • This panel seems to follow the Philadelphia version before the later additions were removed.: Which additions are being referred to here? There is the mention of "alterations to the composition after laying down the underdrawings and completing painting" a bit earlier in this section. The additions mentioned in the Condition section seem at least partly to have been much later.
      Description of what the later additions were got removed when I gutted the page yesterday. Turns out I have acute bronchitis, but should be better in a few days and would like to put back some of those deletions (that I wasn't feeling well is an understatement!). Also apologies to all for the meltdown. Victoria (tk) 18:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      There is no hurry, I'll be watching this for any updates when you are ready. Happy New Year. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
      Section re removals during restoration restored. Probably needs some tweaking though. Victoria (tk) 01:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      Found a file that hadn't made it in which explains removals better (with numbers). Now added. Victoria (tk) 01:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks. The updates to the Condition section clarify the additions nicely. I now understand the sentence here, but perhaps we could clarify it, something like: "This panel seems to follow the Philadelphia version as it was before the later additions were removed." --Mirokado (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      Yep, good catch. Fixed. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Condition
    • ... at an unknown point.: "... at some time."? (We know where it was scratched...)
  • 1998 exhibition
    • ... and a few manuscript leafs.: "leaves" unless manuscripts are a specialised exception
    • ... and a few manuscript leafs. Of those, only two are ...: perhaps better as one sentence: "... and a few manuscript leaves, of which only two are ..."
      Got these Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
    • since there were only five paintings and four are mentioned, can we mention the fifth too?
      Excellent catch (b/c the NYT is wrong!). Now fixed and expanded. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      Hum. We now don't mention either of the Francis paintings in this section. What about the Philadelphia painting? How could that not have been part of the exhibition? Probably a little more detail needed here, particularly if the NYT article used as a reference is incorrect somehow. --Mirokado (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
      NYT failed to mention the St Christophers. The Saint Francises got lost in my "fix" and now retrieved. Sorry about that! Victoria (tk) 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I've now gone through all the article content. There is clearly still quite a lot of copyediting happening, so I will read through the article again once it has settled down a bit. --Mirokado (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a lot of these, but unsure about Rishel. Thinking. Your right about there being a lot of copyediting; the feedback has been great. Maybe I'll ping you when ready for you to revisit? Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, please do. --Mirokado (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I will probably be online a bit less over the next few days, but I'll respond when I can. --Mirokado (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I might not be around much myself until next week. I do want to take the opportunity to thank you for a most thorough, thoughtful, and pleasant review. Victoria (tk) 07:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome! --Mirokado (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I've now read through the article again and have a few final comments:

  • Lead:
    • ... most scholars attributed it either to...: should "it" be "them" since the preceding text is talking about both paintings?
    • The Italian panel revealed underdrawings...: It is the investigation which revealed the underdrawings, not the panel itself. I suggest rephrasing, perhaps add "and on" so that the subject of "revealed" is "Technical analysis" as for "established": "...; and on the Italian panel revealed ..."
  • Figures:
    • The details of his head and face are minutely detailed.: repetition of "detail".
      Better, but features are the subject of two successive sentences. I also didn't quite like "" on repeated reading. Perhaps consider: "Francis has individualized features,[9] to the point that the attention to his face gives it the quality of a portrait such as van Eyck's c. 1431 Portrait of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati,[2] The head and face are minutely detailed."
      • Yes, that's better. Thanks! Victoria (tk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Order founder: "Order's founder" would be better?
  • Iconography:
    • The theatrical pose, rays of light entering his body causing wounds on his side are eliminated, which are deemed "essential features of the iconography".:
      • I would mention three features of the Giotto and many other representations (I've had a look through Commons), see suggested change (you probably intended this and a couple of words have got lost somewhere)
      • rephrase, so that the subordinate clause "which are deemed..." comes closer to its referents
      • thus: The theatrical pose, rays of light entering his body causing wounds and the wound on his side, which are deemed "essential features of the iconography", are eliminated.
      • is "essential features of the iconography" a quote which needs to be attributed in the text?
        Much better than my suggestion, but we are still not mentioning the wound in the side. Is there a reason for not doing so?
        • No reason except that when I put in the quote I forgot! Done now and thanks for catching. Victoria (tk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • ...his feet positioned near a small stream gushing from the rocks, which signify redemption or salvation. It is the stream which signifies redemption or salvation, so "signifies" would be correct and the sentence would be better rephrased: "...his feet positioned near a small stream, which signifies redemption or salvation, gushing from the rocks."
  • Attribution:
    • ..-but x-ray analysis discovered...: "revealed" would probably be better here.
    • "...kneeling figure of The Agony in the Garden leaf...": If we substitute a different title here, we see that a "the" is needed whose referent is "leaf": "...kneeling figure of Apricots leaf...". I suggest rephrasing to avoid the juxtaposition of "the The", perhaps – Borchert notes the similarity of Francis's pose to the kneeling figure of the "Turin-Milan Hours" leaf The Agony in the Garden, ...

It is a pleasure to support this article now. --Mirokado (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you Mirokado - these are all excellent catches and I think now dealt with. Thanks too for the thorough review and the support. Victoria (tk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    You're welcome. Sorry for the late response, but I, idiot, broke my ankle last Monday morning and have not been able to log in for a while. (The ankle will be OK again, will just take a while.) A couple of further comments embedded above. --Mirokado (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Yikes! Take care and thanks for taking the time to look over this. Victoria (tk) 17:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Thank you so much for everything Mirokado, safe recovery :) Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
          You are welcome and thanks for the good wishes. I'm leaving hospital on Monday, then it is a matter of rest and physio. This finishes my review. --Mirokado (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
          Reviewing from hospital goes beyond the call of duty! Thanks so much to sticking with this and take care of yourself. Victoria (tk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Driveby sorry if this has been asked; why isn't this article at just Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata?—indopug (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion, if Ceoil agrees and doesn't mind another move. Victoria (tk) 01:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Aargh, no! This is a very common subject for paintings, and a valid title (very possibly more valid than the one WP now uses) for Stigmata of St. Francis (Giotto), St. Francis in Ecstasy (Bellini, Frick), Saint Francis of Assisi in Ecstasy (Caravaggio), and potentially dozens of other very notable paintings. What we really need is a disam page. Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually, as this is what the Louvre English website calls it, I've moved the Giotto to Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (Giotto), a much better title. Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
See a google image search for plenty more. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry! I did think of the Giotto and the other Italian version but … well, anyway at least Indopug got an answer! Victoria (tk) 04:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Support – This is a fine article, but the prose still needs a bit of tidying. First, are we in American English or British English? We have, for instance, "colour" but "traveled", and for possessives for names ending in "s" a mixture of US ess-apostrophe and English ess-apostrophe-ess. Consistency, please. Other small points on the prose:

  • "Most scholar's" – either there is a noun missing or you have a greengrocer's apostrophe here.
  • "unconcerned by the the apparition" – duplicate word
  • "throneroom ... city-scape" – the opposite of how I would hyphenate them (but what do I know?)
  • "kneeling figure of the The Agony" – more double articles

Nothing to frighten the horses there, and the article seems to me of the usual high quality of scholarship and enthusiasm from this source. I'm happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you Tim for the comments and support, and apologies for the tardy response! I got all the ones you mentioned, and a few others too. Thanks for finding them. Victoria (tk) 16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

More Turkey[edit]

  • The article looks in fine shape. A few things:
  • northern art: should this be northern European art or somesuch?
  • that could only have come from van Eyck: I assume this is what scholars believe rather than an incontrovertible fact?
  • Today the consensus is that the panels were painted by the same hand.: if the consensus is that they could only be by van Eyck, then stating this here is redundant.
  • conversions to inches are given in the body, bu tnot in the lead. Any reason?
  • similar to those seen in contemporary illuminated manuscripts: what does "those" refer to?
  • and anti-naturalistic positioning: the "anti-" seems to me like it was a revolt against naturalism. Would "unnaturalistic" be inappropriate?
  • Till-Holger Borchert observes that Francis' feet are positioned slightly too high above the rest of his body, making them "so bizarrely placed as to look like a foreign body".: this appears in a separate paragraph from the one about His knees and feet seem disconnected. I'd rearrange so these things were together.
  • Question: when speaking aloud, do you say Francis' or Francis's ?
  • such as rays or beams of light: is there a differentce between a "ray" and a "beam" of light?
  • The representation of Christ is of a seraphic vision: I asked this above as well: is there anything good to link to here?
  • In the {{multiple image}} the aligment is set to "left/right/center".
  • significant dissenting voices in the recent past: how recent is "the recent past"?
  • Opinion in the mid-20th century favoured a workshop member; Erwin Panofsky admitted "flagrant heresy" when he expressed doubt with the attribution to Jan.: this is confused---why would it be heresy to doubt attribution to van Eyck at a time when opinion favoured a workshop member?
  • Examination of the sapwood: it might be a good idea to mention the sapwood when discussing the other materials
  • the placement of his feet and knees "made more rational": requires attribution
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Northern art is now clarified
  • "only have come from van Eyck" is a finding from technical analysis - the underdrawings are almost identical to other work known to be van Eyck's - clarified
  • Because there are two paintings, only the attributions for both rely on the technical analysis - the tree-ring analysis ties the Phila. painting (at least) to his workshop, the underdrawings tie the Turin painting to his work. - clarified
  • I added and then removed conversions from the lead because they look like this and on my screen a couple of line are filled with numbers. I think it's ok to have the converts in the body and the pic captions.
  • "similar too…" - good catch and thanks. A piece got lost, now found.
  • Yes, probably best to have the possessive s for Francis. Done now.
  • Beams are gone.
  • "rational" attributed.
  • multiple image fixed
  • Seraph linked; haven't a clue how to link "seraphic vision". Maybe Ceoil or Johnbod know.
Thanks for these - done a few. The others will take a bit more time. Thanks for the copyedits, btw! Victoria (tk) 01:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
No need to link seraphic vision so spefically; would be like trying to find an article for Holy Joe. Establishing that the archetype had three pairs of wings is enough, I think. Ceoil (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If "serephic vision" just means "seeing a seraph", then, yeah, linking to Seraph is sufficient. I had no idea what a seraph was, nor whether a "seraphic vision" had some sort of special meaning. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Why should you have had. It was unclear. dont. Ceoil (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I just toned it down a bit. Ceoil (talk) 07:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing something on my own list, I do believe you've addressed all my concerns. I'm adding my support to this very fine article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank Mr Turkey, for the support and for the thorough review! Victoria (tk) 17:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support very well done. I don't have many comments:

  • "This treatment of Francis" What treatment of Francis? The first time that incident had been painted in Northern Europe?
  • "A later, third version ..." this sentence seems a bit out of place and might do better concluding the second paragraph
  • "The fossils are either a type of mollusk similar to present-day bivalvia or brachiopods" This is a bit unclear. Is the choice mollusk or brachiopod, or is the mollusk a given and the choice between the two b's?
  • "Her team undertook a programme of restoration, investigating the provenance of the paintings and the relationship between them" This sentence gives me pause. The investigation is not an example of the restoration, so is this a list? It seems there's a missing or misplaced "and".
  • "Borchert notes the similarity of Francis's pose to the kneeling figure in the "Turin-Milan Hours" miniature of The Agony in the Garden, and concludes that both were completed after the master had died." Can a hint of the reasoning be included?
  • "it was known in Italy," the painting or Adornes's bringing it?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Wehwalt, for taking the time to read and for the support! I got all of these except the first two. I can't think of a word to replace "treatment" and honestly don't know enough about art to say if that's the right word to use or not (I think it might be). Re "later, third version" - it is at the end of the second para. Do you mean the first para? Victoria (tk) 01:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these Wehwalt. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Anyone signed off on sources here (formatting and reliability)? If not, Ceoil/Victoria, pls post a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

They were discussed up further. Pinging Nikkimaria, otherwise will post request this evening. Don't have time atm - lunch break is over! Tks. Victoria (tk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a few things to add to the discussion above...

  • Sources list needs some alphabetization fixes. One in particular: you've got "von Baldass" alphabetized under B, but "van Asperen de Boer" under V - should be consistent
  • 8 November not 08 November - don't need the initial zero
  • A few minor inconsistencies in footnote formatting - FN7 should include year, 10 has an extra comma, 6 is missing a space, etc
  • Pages for FN 58?
  • No citations to Smeyers, van Asperen. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nikkimaria, for taking the time (and for the good eyes!). I think I've got them all.

Boise National Forest[edit]

Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a U.S. national forest in Idaho, but otherwise is fairly typical for a western national forest. I have worked on this sporadically for the past two years and finally think it's ready for FAC. I'm working on red links. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Red links are all gone. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Several of the images are CC-licensed from Flickr, but should actually be PD as US government photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
    • All should be corrected now. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Boise National Forest is a federally protected area that administers 2,267,000 acres (917,000 ha) of the U.S. state of Idaho. - hmm, I don't think the Area "administers" the - would you not say "covers"?
I'd link understory and evergreen....
Sacajawea’s bitterroot (Lewisia sacajaweana) is a plant species endemic to central Idaho,.... - I'd have either all plnats with scientific names or none of them....
sensitive species - is this an official term? Can it be linked somewhere?

Rest of it looks tight - will take another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I made the changes you suggested. "Sensitive species" is an official term within the Forest Service, but since there's nowhere to link to I tried to explain it at the beginning of the natural resources section. The question is since I explicitly mentioned one bird (of 13) that are listed as sensitive, should all the others be included (as well as the mammals, fish, amphibian, and plants)? Or should it be removed? I don't think this one species is any more inherently notable than any others, and there's only so much utility to listing species. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
As is is good I think - examples are good in general. Not sure about listing all, but some better than none. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Overall, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from HalfGig[edit]

  • In "", "U.S. Forest Service" redirects to the fulled spelled out article name. My understanding is this should be avoided.
  • Same thing with "U.S. Department of Agriculture"
  • Same thing with "ponderosa pine"
  • Same thing with "Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness"
    • The redirect tools seems broken, so it is giving false readings. Can you go through the whole article looking for these?
HalfGig talk 13:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I fixed all these. There were quite a few of them. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Thank you. I see no other issues, so I am supporting now. HalfGig talk 15:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Maky[edit]

Only minor issues:

  • Is the external link at the bottom needed since it's given in the infobox at the top?
    • No, I don't think it's necessary and actually would prefer to remove it. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some image captions, such as "Lucky Peak Nursery", tell me nothing, while the one labeled "The Elk Complex Fire in 2013" shows me a picture of a fire that's not discussed in the article. I'm okay with captions like "The Arrowrock Dam in 1938", though I do feel an article comes across more professionally if the image and caption say something relevant to the article. I'm just looking at this from the perspective of a person browsing Wikipedia who's mostly enjoying the pictures and reading the captions to decide if s/he wants to read the article.
I really like the changes. I hope it's okay with you. It's not required for FAC, but I sincerely feel that it makes the article read better. – Maky « talk » 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there no maps of the scenic roads? It's one thing to read about where the roads go, but another to see them laid out graphically.
    • The roads are actually faintly visible on the map on the page. I had hoped to make a map of the forest similar to but better than this one I made. I no longer have the software or files I used to make any of these maps, so maybe once I teach myself QGIS or something I'll give it another shot. There is a map in the forest's visitor guide that shows several things well, including the roads, but I don't think the map itself it right for the article. But I think that's about it. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. If you'd really like such a map, you can always make a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. – Maky « talk » 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: Since these aren't reasons to hold up promotion, I'm going to give my support for a very comprehensive article. Good job! – Maky « talk » 22:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Note -- I didn't notice a source review above; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley[edit]

  • There is a variety of units used in the lead - acres and ha for area, miles and km for rivers. For such a large area I think sq miles and km would be more useful for the area. This also applies to 'Management', where the districts are described in acres and sq km, or acres only, apparently at random.
    • I consistently use acres (ha) for area (except for the infobox apparently), feet (m) for elevation, and miles (km) for distance. The Forest Service uses acres everywhere, so I adopted that in this article and others. Another user changed what's displayed in the management section. The ranger district areas (that the Forest Service provides) aren't specific acreages (which I can't find) but estimates, so estimating square miles from this can be problematic. I think the aformentioned user eliminated the converted areas for 400,000 acres in its latter two instances because it was previously mentioned in the same sentence. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • In the U.S. acres are also used for area much more regularly than square miles, but maybe a conversion to km2 than hectares would be more appropriate?
  • "Most of Boise National Forest is underlain by the Idaho Batholith and includes parts of the Boise, Salmon River, and West mountain ranges," Presumably Boise rather than the batholith includes mountain ranges, but not clearly expressed.
    • Both the forest and the batholith include the mountain ranges. Clarified. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "the forest supervisor, or the top forest official, is Cecilia Seesholtz." Presentism - should say as of date.
  • The meaning of administered area is obvious, but what is the proclaimed area?
    • Are you looking for more than what's stated in the second to last sentence of the first paragraph of the management section? Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This says that the proclaimed area is set by Congress. Is this just a maximum and the forestry service can choose what areas it actually protects? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I changed some of the wording in the management section. The second paragraph actually details what you're asking. Congress sets the proclaimed area boundaries, but since numerous forests border each other individual forests manage parts of other forests outside of their own proclaimed boundaries. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "An estimated 76 percent of Boise National Forest is forest, which is considered to be land that is capable of supporting trees on at least 50 percent of its area." Is this definition correct? It would mean that vast areas which have been cleared for agriculture and are still capable of supporting trees are still forest.
    • This seems to be a Forest Service definition, which I added. Since there are not agricultural areas or any other similarly developed areas in national forests this wouldn't be a problem with this definition. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Most of these natural lakes are tarns created by alpine glaciers during the Pleistocene." I cannot see where the source supports this.
  • "Average snowfall ranges from 55 to 70 inches (140 to 180 cm), where greater amounts occur at higher elevations." This is unclear. Average at lower latitudes and greater at higher ones?
    • Please clarify. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Is 55-70 the average over the whole area, or just at lower elevations, or just at higher elevations? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The first people entered Idaho near the end of the last ice age at the end of the Pleistocene about 13,000 years ago. A change of climate around 7000 years ago dried up much of the Great Basin forcing the Shoshone people northward into the mountainous areas of central Idaho." This implies continuous occupation for 13,000, which is very unlikely, and the source looks to me dated and carelessly worded. It states that there has been human occupation for 12-15,000 years, but then refers to semi-nomadic people entering Idaho 13,000 years ago. This would probably have been temporary and short term (a leading text book argues that similar evidence in England at this time was the result of occupation by one group for a short period). Human occupation of Idaho is (I assume) unlikely during the Younger Dryas ice age 11-12,000 years ago.
    • I understand what you are saying and may need to look into this further. However, Idaho was largely spared in recent ice ages with continental glaciers only in extreme northern Idaho, far from Boise National Forest, along with significant alpine glaciation elsewhere. See this map as an example. The Great Basin extend into southern Idaho, so it's possible it was continuously inhabited. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This paper suggests that the Younger Dryas did not affect North America as much as Europe. However, if Idaho was like England (and it sounds similar but with much colder winters) there was probably no permanent occupation before the start of the Holocene c. 11,500 years ago, just a few transient campsites of people based further south and occasionally following prey animals north. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Reworded so that there shouldn't be any confusion now. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, although I still have a couple of minor quibbles.
  • "the top forest official, is Cecilia Seesholtz, who has been in that position since 2008" This is still presentism, as it will become outdated when she moves on. It should say the top official as of 2015.
    • It says "as of 2015" earlier in that sentence. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "human habitation up to 15,000 years ago". "up to" is strictly correct as it is the excavator's view, but as the figure is widely doubted by other archaeologists I would prefer 10-15,000 years ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I meant to do exactly this but forgot. Will do. Thanks Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

I'll give this a good look tomorrow. Initially the content seems to all be there but some of the sections look in a backwards order. History and geography and climate I believe belong further up before flora and fauna for a start, not to mention management needing to be moved nearer the bottom, probably before or ever after recreation last. Forest and the other history ought really to be merged and sub split.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator comments[edit]

  • I see Ian mentioned it about on 1/20, but this still needs a source review and spot-check. I have requested one here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Notified: WP:BIOG, WP:FASHION, and WP:FILMBIO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Notified: GOCE reviewer Baffle gab1978, GAC reviewer Cirt and PR discussants Cirt, SNUGGUMS, Kiyoweap, and Sigeng.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about,Emily Ratajkowski who is an elite bikini model (has appeared in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) and who is best known as the model from the video for "Blurred Lines", which was the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries. She has parlayed her model buzz into sex symbol status and some movie roles.

I am hoping for a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in a little over 17 months from now. An October WP:GAN, a November WP:PR and a December WP:GOCE effort make me feel this article is moving in the proper direction for a WP:FAC nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

N. B. I belatedly added this nomination to the WP:FAC page over 3 and a half days after opening the review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this page was viewed 3.2 million times in 2013 and 1.5 million times in 2014 so it is a fairly important page in that regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, as GA Reviewer. I also pitched in with some comments at the peer review. The article was high quality at time of GA Review, and has only improved in quality since then. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

*Weak oppose - I don't consider YouTube an acceptable source. Although if refs #24, #32, #35 and #41 are replaced with reliable sources and the n.a. fields in File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg are filled, I will officially support. MaRAno FAN 14:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • MaranoFan basically, the remaining uses of youtube are all cases where the best available source for a fact that educates the reader is youtube. Although not generally a WP:RS, in each of the remaining uses, youtube is the best source.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Changing to Support :). MaRAno FAN 07:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose due to prose and sourcing. The prose needs some serious work. It is extremely choppy: Fact 1. Fact 2. Something else slightly tied to Fact 1. It does not flow at all. Other things:

  • the lead is quite short
    • The article is currently 13823 characters of readable prose. I have just expanded the LEAD by 152 characters to 1221 characters of readable prose with these edits. I don't know how much more is really LEADworthy from the article. Keep in mind that WP:LEADLENGTH says that for an article less than 15,000 characters a 1 to 2 paragraph LEAD is what is expected. These three short paragraphs are about what would be expected for this length article even though it is formatted in three paragraphs rather than two.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Modeling/Modelling - both spellings are in the article
    • From what I understand British english uses 2 ls and American uses 1 (see this source). Even though the infobox uses the British spelling, I will go with 1 l in the text since she is more American as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Did her appearance on the cover of the magazine treats! directly lead to its price increase? If not, this fact does not belong in the article. If so, you need a source - just citing the two covers to show different prices is NOT good enough.
    • Karanacs, All we know is that her magazine cover seems to have generated enough buzz for her appearance in videos to be demanded. The chronology is an objective fact. I am not sure I understand your point, but what if we had information regarding the sales of the magazine in which she appeared on the cover? I am not sure I can find this, but I vaguely recall something about how that issue sold like hot cakes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I just looked at the treats! article and noticed that the print run was increased from 5,000 to 10,000 between issues 1 and 2, and not between 3 and 4 as would be necessary to support the claim. Not sure what to say. I guess I will revert to my general lack of understanding of your objection to the objective facts presented.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This is WP:SYNTHESIS. You are taking Fact 0 (she appeared on the cover) and then listing Fact 1 (price was X on y date) and Fact 2 (price was Z on A date) to imply that her appearance on the cover is connected to the price increase. Until you have sources that explicitly say there is a connection between her appearance on the cover and the price increase, this needs to be removed from the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Even though I firmly believe that there was causality, I can find no secondary sources and have removed this claim.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not impressed with how many references there are to YouTube videos. I read your explanations above, but they don't satisfy me. If third-party sources do not discuss these events, then they don't need to be in the article. YouTube would be considered a primary source, then, and we should be avoiding those if at all possible.
    • Rather than address this generally, I'd be happy to discuss each individual fact that is only supported by YouTube and state whether it belongs in the article if no other source can be found. I think we are only dealing with a handful of facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think an entire paragraph on Blurred Lines the song is warranted, when she was involved solely in the video, not the song itself.
    • Are you talking about the short paragraph beginning with "Blurred Lines" went on to become the number 1 song of 2013? It is barely a paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of quotes from her about her choices and her beliefs. There is not a lot of analysis by others of what she's done. It makes the article seem lopsided - it is focusing on her perspective of herself. This may be something you cannot overcome yet, because she is so new to the industry, but I think it makes the article incomplete.
  • is a reliable source?
  • Is the Styleite blog a reliable source?
  • Is MovieWeb a reliable source?
  • Twitter is not a reliable source
    • I have removed one of the three uses. It is the only source we have for her claim that the cover was non-consensual. Should I remove this content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The Personal life section seems more like gossip.
  • Is fashionmodeldirectory a reliable source?
  • Is a reliable source?
  • Is the worlds best ever a reliable source?
  • Is the fashion model directory a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I do not believe the image of the magazine cover can be used as fair use in this article. The cover itself is mentioned but is not discussed in detail. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

    • Karanacs, Do we have to find sources on photographic techniques or find sources discussing its use of black-and-white photography. The photo certainly relevant to the bio. I am not sure what you are asking for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
      • According to the fair use guidelines, magazine covers can't be included just as illustrations for biographies. There would need to be some type of discussion within the article about the cover. Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Karanacs, P.S. I have just made a few responses. It was just to show good faith that I intend to really address your concerns on Tuesday. I am a bit tired and will be doing a lot less cerebral edits the rest of the night.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • So far I'm unconvinced that any of those sources are WP:RS. Are they mentioned by other third-party sources? Do they have a good reputation for accuracy? Their about pages don't tell me enough. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of Human Feelings[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a jazz album by saxophonist Ornette Coleman. The previous FAC did not reach a consensus, after which I resolved the concerns in the oppose at that FAC by BananaLanguage with checks of print sources and text. Dan56 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Per MOS:QUOTE, linking should be avoided inside quotes. Either drop the links or paraphrase the quotes to keep them.
The guideline says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes", so does it suggest it's not always possible? I'd think cases where a unique phrase or term which cant be paraphrased is the exception, like "collective consciousness" or "key (music)|key", unless I should drop the quotation marks altogether since these are unique enough phrases? Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • and sought to recruit electric instrumentalists for his music, based on a creative theory he developed called harmolodics: Does harmolodics require electric instruments? The wording seems to imply so
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • all the musicians are able to play individual melodies in any key, and all the while sound coherent as a group: is this the theory, or an aspect of the theory?
It's the theory --> "According to his theory..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • He taught his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach: is this harmolodics, or has the subject changed?\
Harmolodics; I changed it to "...this new improvisation..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. Nonetheless, Coleman still wanted to set up his own record company with the same name: I don't understand---the rejection of the recording led to the failure of Coleman's recording company, but he wanted to revive it?
I don't see how that's suggested here, that the rejection of the recording led to its failure. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what's being said here. He "still wanted to set up his own record company", but the failed session had been a project of a record compnay he already had? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I replaced "Nonetheless" with "In addition to this company, he also wanted to...". Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The session was originally titled Fashion Faces : do sessions have titles, or was this the working title of the album?
I've read sources that say both--Palmer's 1982 NY Times review says the working title--while the source cited here says the session. I deferred to the latter because it's a bio on Coleman by a jazz writer. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Unlike most albums at the time, it was recorded with a Sony PCM-1600 two-track digital recorder.: I'm assuming this is trying to say either (or both) (a) that the album was a two-track recording rather than whatever ridiculous number of tracks they were up to by 1979 (b) it was digital. The way it's worded, the emphasis is on the Sony as opposed to other brands.
The source suggests neither--just that it was a PCM-1600, which it called "then-rare". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the source---I was talking about the wording, which tells us that, unlike most of the industry, Coleman et al used a Sony. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I rephrased it to say this recording item was rare at the time. Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • a type of music that originated in 1970: has the advent of jazz-funk been pinpoited so precisely?
Source says "about 1970". I rephrased it as "originated around 1970". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • to make each pair of guitarist and drummer: it should probably be made more explicit before this point that there were two simultaneous drummers.
It is in the lead, "background", and in "recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In passing, yes, it's mentioned there were two people who were drummers. It doesn't say they played simultaneously, which I think will surprise most readers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Added "simultaneously" to where they're mentioned in "Recording", Curly Turkey. Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mandel felt that the passages were neither very soft or loud, because the album was mixed with a middle-frequency range and compressed dynamics: shouldn't this be in the "Recording" section rather than "Compostion"?
It would seem so, but it's a critic's interpretation or opinion on how it was recorded and his impression on how a musical passage in a song here sounds. I could move it there, however, if you still feel it's more appropriate in "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, whether it goes earlier or later, I don't think "Composition" is the appropriate place. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved it to "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Jump Street" is a blues piece with a bridge: is there something unusual about a piece of music having a bridge?
The source said it's a "blues with a bridge". I think the point of highlighting this in the source was how simple the composition was, but it functions better in the sentence here on different songs' different compositions/features. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we assume the reader is well familiar with the context Coleman was working in, which is not a good assumption to make at Wikipedia, which aims at a general audience. We can't assume a reader will know these things, though, and will likely read it as I did: "A blues track that features a bridge". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure a general audience would know what a bridge is. At least that's the impression I've gotten when trying to talk about music with friends that are just casually interested in it lol. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
All the more reason to explicate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The source doesn't really do that. Would it be best to just remove it altogether? Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think so—otherwise it just leaves heads scratching as to why it was even mentioned. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • cancelled both deals upon Mwanga's return from Japan: any reason why?
No :/ Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • including the electric guitar from rock: except that the electric guitar didn't originate in rock
It didn't necessarily have to; according to what's cited in Rock_music#Characteristics, it's a central element to rock music. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
English is a central element of American culture, but we don't say that English is "from the United States". Besides, electric guitar is hardly a fringe instrument in jazz. What he incorporated was guitar with a rock-like approach (distortion, etc). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think comparing that to this is apples to oranges. The source phrased this in a similar fashion anyway: "Coleman had begun to experiment with ... rock or rhythm-and-blues elements (by adding electric guitar and, for a time, a blues singer to his group)." Also, a general audience associates the electric guitar with rock music more so than with any other genre, doesn't it? Palmer, a professional critic, seems to make this association too. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, then Palmer's being sloppy in expressing himself, isn't he? Distortion is something that definitely came from the rock approach, but the electric guitar itself is objectively not "from rock", and was far from uncommon in jazz. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't think he is--"electric guitar" is an element from rock music. It's also an element from the blues, but I think Palmer said rock because that may have been the source for Coleman in discovering electric guitar as something he'd want to include. "From" doesn't necessarily mean it originated from it--it was reappropriated and became know as the key element to rock's sound. Also, jazz purists, particular critics of this album, complained about the electric guitar being used by fusion and avant-garde players, because it's not traditionally found in bop or straight-ahead jazz, which is what a general audience usually associates with jazz. I would compromise with your revision about a "rock-like approach" to the electric guitar but none of the other sources suggested this, that Prime Time's guitarists for instance played in a rock style. I'll remove "the" and leave it as "including electric guitar from rock...", so it doesn't suggest what you're saying as much--just "electric guitar from rock", if that helps? Dan56 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Or I could just remove "from rock" altogether? Dan56 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that would be disappointing, as it's obviously a rock influence. You may not intend "from" to mean "originated in", but that is certainly a valid reading and therefore makes the reading ambiguous and open to such misinterpretation. What you want to say is that he was incoroorating a rock influence and thus added electric guitar, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, Would this change from "elements" to "influences" suffice? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not really: it's the "from rock" wording I'm objecting to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed "from rock". Dan56 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
... again, it's not the word "rock" I have an issue with—it's an important detail that rock was the influence. It's better than it was (implying electric gutiar came from rock), but the fact that it was a rock influence that drove Coleman to add it is an important detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ellerbee, the guitarist on this album, is said by a source to have incorporated distortion actually, although I've read a little up on it and early R&B records seem to have predated distortion in rock music ([15]), so it's whatever I guess. Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This is going off on a tangent. The point is, the source tells us that it was rock that influenced Coleman to add electric guitar. I mentioned distortion merely as an example—as it was the full saturation-style distortion that was a rock innovation and standard part of rock guitar playing, and that's what you hear on the record. I'm not expecting that to be mentioned, though, as the sources don't say that. What's important to mention is what the sources do mention—that including electric guitar was a rock influence. The problem is specifically the wording "electric guitar from rock". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to "...including rock influences such as electric guitar and..." Curly Turkey. Dan56 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... Well, I guess that's better. Okay, I'll let this one drop. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • non-Western rhythms played by Moroccan and Nigerian musicians: if the musicians were Morrocans and Nigerians, that's not clear from this line

Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I rewrote it as "...Nigerian musicians he enlisted." Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Some more Turkey[edit]
  • made the most sense out of Coleman's harmolodic theory: meaning, out of his recordings it was the esiest to understand? Or it got the most out of the theory?
I cannot check the source, as it is behind a paywall--I originally accessed it through snippet/search through Google News Archive, which no longer has that search function. What is unclear about the way it is written as is? Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • , which he said is "like learning a new language".: I think this could safely be dropped, as it's about the critic rather than really about the album, Coleman, or jazz.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • RE: reverts:
    • felt the album's supporters in "hip rock circles" have overlooked flaws such as the dilutive digital production: yes, it says he "felt", but this could easily be read as "the dilutive digital production was something he thought was a flaw", rather than "he felt the digital production was dilutive". Is it a fact or an opinion that the digital production had a dilutive effect? It certainly wan't the intention, was it? Ditto with "one-dimensional". You can see the difference between "He felt the playing was one-dimensional" and "the playing was one-dimensional, which he thought was a flaw", right?
I assumed everything after "felt..." implies it his opinion. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not logically, no. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
ok, revised. Dan56 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to fight over a "however", but I don't think it adds anything substantive to the prose, but does unnecessarily chop it up and slow it down.
    • "saying" is a present participle? So what sense can you make of "He was saying"? You might want to read up on "ing" forms---they're not even restricle to making participles.
Ook, read up on it. I had assumed another editor's change to something similar at another article was correct when they explained it like I just did. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the biggest thing missing from the article is perhaps a paragraph giving a capsule overview of Coleman's career and music and its reception in the jazz world. The article makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's knowledge: for instance, lines like "the man once accused of standing on the throat of jazz" jump out of nowhere. How is the reader supposed to interpret this?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Curly Turkey. I've dug up a source and added a line to "Background" introducing Coleman's background in the '60s. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Another nitpick: In the mid-1970s, however, he stopped recording free jazz with acoustic ensembles: does this mean he stopped playing free jazz, or that he continued to play free jazz but with electric instruments? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the source, both. "Coleman had abandoned his free jazz style ... Also, by the mid-1970s, he no longer performed with acoustic trios and quartets..." I combined it in the article, because the part about him pursuing a new direction in his music reinforces a departure from his free jazz style. Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've tweaked it. I guess all my concerns have been addressed, so I'm ready to support. The "free jazz" in the infobox may be a bit confusing, though. Generally, I think the "genre" parameter should be restricted to genres that can be used to describe the album as a whole, rather than genres that happen to appear on it—otherwise it can lead to endless "genre" lists whenever anyone thinks of yeat another genre that can be thrown in. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Khanassassin[edit]

  • Support; gave it a read-through. A well-written, easy-to-read article, no issues found. Except one (maybe), but not big enough to delay a support. It probably isn't even an issue. Check it (in the Recording section): "The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. In addition to this company, he wanted to set up his own record company with the same name, so he chose his longtime friend Kunle Mwanga to be his manager." Isn't this essentially the same thing? I'm probably wrong. --Khanassassin 12:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Music publishing companies own or are assigned the copyright for a composition, while a record company deals with the master recording of that composition. Dan56 (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Max24[edit]

  • Support; article is well-balanced in content and structure, with plenty of reliable sources. --Max24 Max24 16:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Media check - all OK (GermanJoe)[edit]

  • Non-free lead image and sound sample are within WP:NFCC - OK.
  • Other images are CC - OK.
  • All images have sufficient source and author info - OK.
  • File:Ornette_at_The_Forum_1982.jpg - Flickr-image with no original EXIF-data, but similar uploads from the same Flickr-user have valid EXIF, no obvious signs of problems - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether books include locations
  • Be consistent in how volume is treated - compare Jenkins and Larkin. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2011)[edit]

Nominator(s): starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a professional wrestling (scripted, I know) pay-per-view event, held by WWE in Chicago in 2011. I'd say this pay-per-view and the storylines leading into it pushed CM Punk into top-tier status in professional wrestling. The main event between Punk and John Cena received a five out of five star rating from the most prominent wrestling journalist Dave Meltzer. The Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter ranked the event as the best PPV in 2011 against other PPVs from WWE and three other wrestling companies.

I'm hoping that the third time's the charm as the previous two nominations stalled. After the second FAC failed, I did a second peer review, which was definitely more successful than the first. The article has also received copyedits from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors since the last FAC by Valfury and Baffle gab1978. The last professional wrestling FA was promoted nearly three years ago and I am hoping to add to the list.

Hopefully this meets the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Thank you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I wouldn't mention the sponsor in the lead (especially the opening line) unless it were in itself interesting in some way (it doesn't appear to be).
  • Well, I didn't restore it since you removed it. starship.paint
  • The Raw and SmackDown briefcases: the what?
  • Rephrased. starship.paint
  • while The Sun rated: coming right after Canoe, I'd have assumed this Sun was the Canadian chain (this isn't trivial---it's the largest newspaper chain in Canada).
  • Fixed. starship.paint
  • The event drew 195,000 pay-per-view [[Trade|buys]]: this couldn't possibly be linking where you intended---either way, it should be worded to be clearer rather than simply linked.
  • Unlinked. I'm not sure how to phrase it better - there were 195,000 customers who bought the pay-per-view, but there might have been more who watched it. starship.paint
  • The reviews in the last paragraph are perhaps a bit too much specific detail for the lead.
  • I cut the previous year's event's rating. starship.paint
    • What I'm thinking is that the whole second and third sentences of that paragraph should go—that "Money in the Bank 2011 was broadcast globally and received positive reviews" sufficiently covers it at the scope of the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Changed. starship.paint
  • [[wiktionary:Wikisaurus:sycophant|"ass-kisser"]]": this is WP:EGG, and not very helpful as far more people are familiar with the term "ass-kisser" than "sycophant". I'd just unlink it.
  • Unlinked. I'm not sure how to phrase it better - there were 195,000 customers who bought the pay-per-view, but there might have been more who watched it. starship.paint
  • By November 2010: "By" and not "in"?
  • A secondary source reported the date in November 2010, but WWE could have made the announcement earlier. starship.paint
    • Hmmm ... do you think you can hunt around for a source that might explicitly say when the announcement was made? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Searched, couldn't find a better reliable source. starship.paint
  • John Cena defending the WWE Championship against: as in, Cena was the defending champion?
  • That's right, is it not apparent? starship.paint
  • In addition to breaking the fourth wall: where was the fourth wall broken?
  • The source says that Punk "broke the fourth wall" waving to the camera before claiming to be the best wrestler in the world. What should be done? starship.paint
    • If all he did was wave to the camera, I'd say that wasn't even signiicant enough to mention. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's an extremely rare event for WWE. In addition, it fits in with his speech of rebellion. starship.paint
    • The way it's worded, it's not clear (a) how he broke the fourth wall; or (b) why it's significant. "a" is the more important point---even after your telling me this, I still don't get that from the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Rephrased and added a new source. He literally said "I'm breaking the fourth wall." starship.paint
    • Okay, well if it's addressing the camera that was the fourth wall-breaking, then that should be stated. I've added it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • [[kayfabe|storyline]]: WP:EGG
  • removed wikilink starship.paint
  • I see the words "signature ... maneuvre" with far too much frequency; I'm nto nearly familiar enough with wrestling terminology to know what other terms to use, though
  • The only alternative is "signature move", I'm afraid. starship.paint
  • Changed half of them. starship.paint
  • In a scene reminiscent of the Montreal Screwjob: what, and in what way? starship.paint
  • Montreal Screwjob was also orchestrated by Vince McMahon in a match for the WWE Championship. A wrestler was in a submission hold and did not submit, but it was ruled that he submitted and thus lost the match. starship.paint
  • I tried. @Curly Turkey: starship.paint
    • Hmmm ... I tried to tweak it a bit, but I'm not really satidfied with what I did. Whatever, it's good enough. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • despite Punk not submitting, McMahon signaled the referee to award Cena the match and sent Laurinaitis to ring the bell.: this is uncited.
  • fixed starship.paint
  • to immediately cash in his contract on Punk: what does this mean?
  • If Del Rio "cashed in", he would have an immediate match against Punk for the WWE Championship. I reworded. starship.paint
  • 'The Sun's Rob McNichol described the Raw Money in the Bank match as "a shade below it's [sic] Smackdown equivalent" but still "entertaining".: I don't think this is a good image caption—Wikipedia's not a magazine
  • I just want to get the image into the article. Since the image is in the otherwise picture-barren Reception section, I gave it such a caption. Would you like to suggest another caption? starship.paint
  • Changed. starship.paint
  • The Sun's Rob McNichol rated the event: again, following from a paragraph about, many will assume this is about the Canadian chain (which is owned by the owners of
  • Fixed starship.paint
  • Punk made a surprise appearance at a show hosted by the independent All American Wrestling promotion without: a show hosted by a promotion?
  • Promotion is equal to "company". Promotion appears a few times in the article, actually. starship.paint
    • "Promotion" is equal to "company"? I'm not aware of that usage, and I image I'm not alone in that ignorance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a wrestling term. Changed them. Infobox cannot be helped though starship.paint
    • If you're going to use it more than once in an article, it might be good to gloss the term at the first instance, and then you have no worries for the rest of the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • , a wrestler with cerebral palsy: is his cerebral palsy important to the narrative? If so, it should be explicated; otherwise, I'd drop it
  • It's irrelevant to this event, but Punk's appearance, as per the source, was endorsing Iron as an inspiration for overcoming cerebral palsy. starship.paint
    • If that's the case, then it should be said so, otherwise it comes off as just a random detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Explained. starship.paint
  • I've changed the hard number of columsn in {{Reflist}} to a colwidth, as it's friendlier to a wider variety of screen sizes and dimensions (browsers will automatically adjust the number of columns). Feel free to change the width if you think it's too wide or narrow
  • Fine. starship.paint
  • @Curly Turkey: Thank you for your comments. Do come back! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, I guess I returned. I've copyedited the whole article; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I know almost nothing about wrestling (or sports in general) so I'll assume the level of play-by-play detail is appropriate. The article otherwise seems well organized and seems to hit all the bases but one: as this is the second Money in the Bank event, a brief description of what it is and how it came about would be helpful—it starts very suddenly with the WWE announcement of the event. Perhaps even a paragraph on it would be good. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey: Thank you very much for your extensive copyedit. Is your last query answered by my change to the lede? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't see where you've added background on the series (I'd call that the most important missing piece). Also, there are those who would object to having a four-paragraph lead to a 19k article (per WP:LEADLENGTH). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I've tightened the lead; please let me know if there any issues with what I've done. Also, the lead is supposed to be a summary of what's in the body; this means you don't need inline cites in the lead unless what's there is particularly contentious. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey: hmm, let me explain. WWE holds 12 or 13 pay-per-views per year, which are special events compared to WWE's weekly TV programs. Money in the Bank 2011 is just one of the PPVs. The previous and next year, WWE held Money in the Bank 2010 and 2012, but the only similarity is that they feature Money in the Bank ladder matches. Money in the Bank is a theme for the PPV. starship.paint
    • Okay, I've tweaked the opening line a bit more. If you're satisfied with that, then I'm almost ready to support on prose: I'd still like to see the background expanded as I stated about (and include the bits about the number of PPV events—everything in the lead should also be in the body), and I'd like to see that inline cite disappear from the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey: I have shifted some information from the lead to the background section, I think everything in the lead is now covered in the body, including the number of PPV events. The reference has also migrated from the lead to the background. starship.paint
    • Hmmm ... it's just about there. I like how you've rearranged the lead. The "Background" section, I think, needs just a tad more work—it starts with the announcement, and it isn't until the second paragraph that we find out what it is. Try to imagine this article on the main page—there will be many who will click through who have only a casual interest in wrestling. How does the "Background" section as written orient such a reader? I'd expect it to begin with something like: "The Money in the Bank series is a blah blah blah that began in blooh blooh, organized by Joe Blough to burp burp burp" or whatever. Since there was only one previous event, it might even be good to recap it in a sentence or so—whatever would help orient that casual reader. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey: the thing is that Money in the Bank is not really a series. MITB 2010 has nothing to do with MITB 2011 because they are one year apart in terms from storylines. The PPV before MITB 2011, WWE Capitol Punishment, would be more relevant because it is one month apart in terms of storylines. It's like Friends Season 2 Episode 6 is more relevant to Season 2 Episode 7 than Season 1 Episode 7 is. Capitol Punishment is already mentioned where it's relevant in the Storylines section regarding Orton and Christian. There isn't any real information on MITB as a series. It's organized by WWE. It began in 2010. That's it. starship.paint
  • @Curly Turkey: I apologize for the late reply. Is there anything from WWE Money in the Bank you would like included in MITB 2011? The extraneous stuff at that article seems to be talking about 2012/13/14 events, not the 2010 one. starship.paint
    • Well, something to clear things up---it's a series, but not really a series? It's an annual event, but it's just one of several such events in a year and there's no real continuity? It needs some sort of explanation for those who aren't steeped in the way the WWE works. There was an earlier event with the same name, which would lead someone (like me) to assume some strong connection with that event---which leads such a reader to think something's missing from the article. I sure wouldn't expect it to parallel something like your Friends example---for one thing, episodes don't normally share titles. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I have thought about it and I think I understand your concerns. I'll have to write up an explanatory note. This might affect other articles as well, those like WWE Money in the Bank. However, one problem I foresee is that I am not sure if I can find a reliable source doing the same explaining that I will be doing. starship.paint
    • Well, let's see what you can come up with. If there's no real history in RSes then there's nothing we can do about that, but the connection with other Money in the Banks surely can be clarified somehow. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey: Check out the background section! starship.paint
    • Alright, I'd move that to the first paragraph, though, and rather than emphasize the lack of connection to the previous event, I'd simply mention that the storylines carry on from the ongoing season (year? I don't know how it works). How does something like this work:
The previous Money in the Bank in 2010 featured a main event involving John Cena. The ongoing storylines in WWE's weekly television programs provided the background to the 2011 event, which continued the storylines from the previous event in WWE's 2011 pay-per-view schedule, Capitol Punishment.
Of course, this will still need a citation. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Curly Turkey: Implemented. The first sentence is now cited. The second sentence is backed up by the entire Storylines section ... how about shifting this paragraph to Storylines? starship.paint
    • Alright, I guess it's fine. If you ever do find any sources that can give a bit more detail to the background of how the event came to be, I strongly urge you to add it. The article as it is I think is fine now, and I give it my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support My (relatively minor) concerns from the previous FAC have been addressed, it's looking great.LM2000 (talk) 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from User: Gloss[edit]

Article looks okay, but the prose needs some work.

  • "while Daniel Bryan won the match for wrestlers from the SmackDown brand for a similar opportunity for the World Heavyweight Championship." - isn't it the same opportunity? "similar" makes it seem like there may be a difference between winning it for Raw and for SmackDown.
  • "Money in the Bank 2011 was broadcast globally and received positive reviews" - the name of the event was "Money in the Bank" not "Money in the Bank 2011" (as it says on the poster) so it's probably better to drop the 2011 from this line - I know it's a re-occuring event but each event is only called "Money in the Bank"
  • Both settled. starship.paint
  • "Tickets went on sale in May 2011 through Ticketmaster with prices ranging from $25 to $300.[3]" - I don't think ticket information is needed, is it? I don't know that I've ever seen pricing information in any concert/event article.
  • Umm, the information was out there, and I added it to be comprehensive. starship.paint
  • Well there's a lot of information that may exist but not belong in an encyclopedia. I'd say this falls in that category. Gloss 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's such a bad thing to have in an article of this length. The only concern I'd have would be how well it integrates with the surrounding prose. If it doesn't fit well, it could be shunted into a footnote. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Raw and SmackDown should be linked the first time they appear in the "storylines" section
  • Nope, but it's not a big deal. Gloss 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "he and not Cena was "the best in the world"" - rewording might make this sound better, something like "he, rather than Cena, was "the best in the world""
  • Done. starship.paint
  • while the image of Punk and Cena is good because it's from the event, a solo picture of Punk or Cena might be better in this spot (maybe of Cena, since Punk has a solo picture later in the article). The article has plenty of other pictures from the event and this one isn't of great quality and also only shows Punk's back, so it's not doing a great job of presenting him.
  • Just adding a comment that although I supported I'd still like to see this swap made. Gloss 02:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @Gloss: How's the new photo? Might be a bit old but it's the only good one of him with the championship. Otherwise I think I settled all your concerns so far. starship.paint
  • It's better. Gloss 04:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Their rivalry started on the May 6 episode of " - might be better to stay "their storyline started" since the two have had a rivalry in the past, so to say it started on May 6th is slightly misleading
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "At Capitol Punishment, Orton defeated Christian" - can we give this a time frame? I'm not sure when it was but for example "Two months prior at Capitol Punishment" or "Three years ago at Capitol Punishment"
  • going back a little, "On the next Raw" should probably be "On the next episode of Raw" - I wasn't sure about it at first but later on in the article I see "On the June 24 episode of SmackDown" so it should stay consistent - also a little bit later on "July 1 SmackDown" needs to be kept consistent
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "The Raw Money in the Bank competitors were announced" - Raw should be italicized, I believe
  • In this case it refers to the Raw brand, not the Raw TV show, so no italics. starship.paint
  • "Show knocked out Henry" - has "Show" ever been used as a nickname for him? It's not his last name, so "Big Show" should be used whenever he's mentioned. It'd be like saying Taker instead of Undertaker.
  • "Show knocked out Henry before the bout began. This created a rivalry between the two; Henry interfered in Big Show's match with Alberto Del Rio at Capitol Punishment and on the June 27 episode of Raw in a cage match." - sentences should be mixed a little better.. try "Big Show knocked out Henry before the bout began, creating a rivalry between the two. Henry interfered in Big Show's match with Alberto Del Rio at Capitol Punishment and on the June 27 episode of Raw in a cage match."
  • The July11ST reference maybe. Never mind, "Big Show is better, thanks. starship.paint
  • the use of the word "advertised" in the last paragraph of "storylines" seems a bit awkward, "announced" would sound better
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "Kelly had been feuding with the Bella Twins since May" - if not including a year such as "May 2011" then remove "since May" and say "for three months"
  • Done, thanks. starship.paint
  • "Barrett got Bryan onto his shoulders and tried to throw him off the ladder" - the repetition of "the ladder" in this and the previous sentence is noticeable. you can leave it as "tried to throw him off" here (we know they're still on the ladder)
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "Henry gained a two-count after slamming Big Show back against the mat with his World's Strongest Slam move. Henry then performed the World's Strongest Slam again and two running splashes for the pinfall victory" - repetition of "World's Strongest Slam" makes it sound awkward. the second time you can just say "Henry then performed the move again"
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "Henry wrapped a chair around Show's ankle and injured it by jumping on it." - injured the chair or injured the ankle? Just kidding, but rewording this would help too.. as well as not calling him "Show" again --- "Henry injured Big Show by jumping on a chair wrapped around his ankle."
  • Reworded differently. starship.paint
  • "Orton was enraged; he kicked Christian in the groin" ---> "An enraged Orton kicked Christian in the groin"
  • Done. starship.paint
  • "Punk kicked out of two of Cena's signature Attitude Adjustment move" ---> "Punk kicked out of Cena's signature Attitude Adjustment move twice"
  • Reworded differently. starship.paint
  • "thirty" --> 30 (with a number higher than ten, it's usually safe to not need to spell it out)
  • Done. starship.paint
  • the part about the Montreal Screwjob confused me a little at first. I would explain what happened at Money in the Bank first, and then say how it was reminiscent of the Screwjob.
  • Done starship.paint
  • Raw needs to be italicized again
  • See my comment above regarding Raw. starship.paint
  • references should read in numerical order. at the end of both paragraphs in the main event match section, it reads [5][4][25]
  • Done, thanks. starship.paint

Will return with comments on the rest later. Gloss 21:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • "which was an increase of 18.2% from the 165,000 of the previous year's" -- add "event" to the end of the sentence
  • link to the 2012 MITB
  • "Money in the Bank 2011 received" - again, the event is only titled MITB not MITB 2011 (this pops up again later in the section "Dave Hillhouse at the Canadian Online Explorer's said Money in the Bank 2011" and one last time at the end of the section)
  • Three comments above settled. starship.paint
  • the second paragraph needs to be expanded a little bit more, or just made a bit clearer. who was the event competing against for the title of Best Event? that's explained at the end of the third paragraph but it should be explained here as well… the last sentence can probably be tied into the one before it, just to ensure the reader still knows we're talking about a wrestling observer award
  • Settled. starship.paint
  • "Alex Roberts of the Professional Wrestling Torch Newsletter attended the event. He criticized the ladder matches for exemplifying higher risks for smaller returns" - it's not really important that he attended. you can cut out "attended the event. He"
  • The live experience is different from the perspective of a person watching the PPV on television. He's better able to judge the crowd's response, which was a part in the review. starship.paint
  • The image caption needs a little re-wording. "Several wrestlers jostle on top of the ladders while trying to unhook the briefcase during the Raw Money in the Bank match." - the tense is confusing. maybe change "jostle" to "jostling" and then remove the period, since it's not a complete sentence
  • Settled. starship.paint
  • "Hillhouse rated the main event 8 out of 10 and the overall event 6 out of 10." - earlier in the section you use "five out of five" and "four out of five" but now we're back into numbers. these should all be written out
  • Settled. starship.paint
  • Actually, I think we're seeing way too much of how many stars are being given. Perhaps take some of those out. It feels like every other sentence is how many stars someone gave the event and it's over doing it.
  • Done starship.paint
  • The info about the rating on the 2010 MITB can be taken out. If there is a main MITB event page that talks about all of the events, it could go there. But it's not relevant to the 2011 event.
  • Done starship.paint
  • Links are needed all around for the first time some thing appear in the section: WWE championship, the arena, Vince McMahon, The Miz, Rey Mysterio, Cena, Del Rio, World Heavyweight Championship, Daniel Bryan, Sheamus, Kelly Kelly
  • WP:OVERLINK -> Generally, a link should appear only once in an article starship.paint
  • Give a time frame for SummerSlam and Survivor Series so the reader knows when it's happening. "at SummerSlam the following month" and "at Survivor Series that November" would work
  • done starship.paint

More to come, I'd guess. Gloss 19:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

There are also dead links and links that have had the path change. See here. Gloss 19:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Updated the links to the best of my ability starship.paint
  • I'm going to go ahead and say that I support this candidacy. I may have a few more minor points to address for further improvement, but none will likely affect my support. Great job on the article, I can see that you went through almost a year of work to get to this point and I hope it pays off at the end of this thing. Gloss 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much!}} starship.paint

Coord notes -- just a reminder that this nomination will need:

  • Image review
  • Source review for formatting and reliability
  • Spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be the nominator's first FA if successful

Will post requests for these at WT:FAC in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK
I fixed all minor issues, listed points are merely comments and tips for future nominations:

  • Captions with full sentences should end in periods, incomplete captions should not (fixed).
  • File:Money_in_the_Bank_(2011).jpg - "fair use" OK, make sure non-free images do not exceed 100,000 pixels usually (fixed).
  • Make sure, all image source links are valid and active, or an archive link is provided, where possible (fixed for Cena image).
  • All other images are CC or Public Domain - OK.
  • Flickr-images have been reviewed and show no signs of problems - OK.
  • File:Cena_With_Spinner_Belt.jpg - technically the quoted permission statement would not be sufficient, but works by US military personnel are PD anyway, regardless of additional declarations - OK.
  • Included, probably copyrighted, elements like the WWE logo should be de minimis - OK.
  • All images have sufficient source and author info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Reference/Formatting Comments from Ceranthor
  • What makes a reliable source?
  • What makes a reliable source?
  • What makes a reliable source?
  • Easier for me to replace it with a source. starship.paint
  • Why does source 31 include this blurb: "McMahon's actions included an attempted Montreal-esque Chicago Screwjob... Cena locked in the STF. It was then The Chairman of the Board made his way to the ring with WWE Executive Vice President John Laurinaitis for a potential screwing not seen since Survivor Series 1997."?
  • Removed starship.paint
  • No dab links.
  • HAT'S WHAT I DO starship.paint
  • You need to stay consistent in using both date and accessdate for {{cite web}} For example, why does source 62 list the date of publication while source 63 doesn't? ceranthor 20:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ceranthor Cite web dates are gone. Are dates fine for cite journal or cite press release? starship.paint
Looks good to me. Sorry for the delay! And yes, dates are typically included for both so that's totally fine. ceranthor 18:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • YEA-OH! I mean ... the wait was nothing. Thank you! :) starship.paint

Technical note. Someone is a) using "blue" templates throughout this FAC, and b) not signing their entries, so I can't tell who is doing it. Templates are discouraged at FAC because they get double-counted when FACs are transcluded to archives, and template-limits can be exceeded in archives, causing FACs to be cut off (among other odd and random errors). Please sign your entries, and please remove all of the "Blue" templates from the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry. It's me. Hope I have fixed it. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks so much ... few editors are aware of this template-limits problem, so I highlight it whenever I encounter it. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


  • dead link
  • Parts of the Roberts paragraph need further paraphrasing, or direct quoting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: thank you, I have tried to fix both. starship.paint

Josh Hutcherson[edit]

Nominator(s): Gloss 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about actor Josh Hutcherson, most well known as of late for his role as Peeta Mellark in The Hunger Games film series. Hutcherson has also been in well known films such as Firehouse Dog, Bridge to Terabithia, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and The Kids Are All Right. The article was up for a peer review in December 2013, which closed without a single review, passed its GAN in February 2014 and then failed a FAC in April 2014 due to a lack of reviewers. I began working on the article again and brought it to another peer review which closed a few weeks ago again with very little success, put a little more work into the page and now I'm back with it and hoping to gain some more reviews and pass this one through to become featured.

As always, I'm open to any suggestions for improvement and welcome the feedback. Gloss 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mark Miller[edit]

Image review

  • There are 6 images being used in the article. All have proper license and attribution. However I believe there may be too many images with little EV. I would suggest losing File:Josh Hutcherson 2012.jpg as it does not add very much to the article and another 2012 image is represented of the subject in another section. Also File:Josh_Hutcherson_by_Gage_Skidmore.jpg is decorative and redundant. It has no relevance to the section or list.
  • The main image had a proper free license but was uploaded as a very small version and was very washed out. I have taken the liberty at Commons to upload a newer version in the cropped but full size version of the original and corrected the washed out look of the image from this to this.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed those two images, good point. And wow! Thank you for uploading a new version, that looks much better. I'm no image-pro, so the help is much appreciated. Gloss 03:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well written?

  • The article needs a bit of a general edit to help the writing, just a bit, to be more engaging, and more focused.

Lede section

  • "Joshua Ryan "Josh" Hutcherson (born October 12, 1992) is an American actor." should actually read: "Joshua Ryan "Josh" Hutcherson (born October 12, 1992) is an American film, television and voiceover actor." Here is where it is important to be focused and precise. As an actor we want to know what kind of actor and what genres.
  • The line that follows goes directly to his acting career and skips over his personal life. At least add some mention of his being a native of Kentucky and having working parents. The personal life section is short and could use some expansion but something along the lines of: "A native of Kentucky who's working parents held careers in the air line industry and US Government, Josh began his acting career in....."
  • He received eight Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor in those five years, half of which he won. is awkward. That should read something like: In that five year span, he has won four out of eight Young Artist Award nominations for Best Leading Young Actor.
  • The line: Beyond entertainment, Hutcherson is heavily involved in a gay–straight alliance chapter he co-founded with Avan Jogia, "Straight But Not Narrow." Should read: Aside from the entertainment industry, Hutcherson is heavily involved in the gay–straight alliance chapter he co-founded with Avan Jogia, they call "Straight But Not Narrow." Be sure and say "the" gay-straight alliance not "a" as we are being specific to a particular group the subject created.
  • Also...there is a mistake here referring to Hutcherson as a co-founder of "Straight But Not Narrow." He is actually an "advocate" but is not listed as a co-founder. See this Facebook image with its caption.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(I have more but this is some this to start)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Given I've gone a year with this article getting very little feedback, I just want to say how much I appreciate you reviewing this! I've taken care of all of these points.
I agree with you about the writing needing to be a bit more engaging. I've read the article 500 times over, so it's hard for me to think of different ways to word things. I brought the article to the WP:GOCE and a user copyedited the article. However some further rewriting/rewording could definitely be beneficial.
As for the personal life section, are you referring to the early life section? The personal life section I feel accurately covers a good amount of information. The early life section is rather short, however not too much information is out there on his early life. I'm going to look into this some more and see what I can come up with.
Thanks again! Gloss 02:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time for lack of comprehensiveness and per SNUGGUMS comments and concerns as well as my own that this will certainly take longer than the period of the FAC to bring up to criteria. There are sources out there to begin a more detailed coverage of the personal life section. The subject has been very candid in a number of interviews and his story may not be as exciting as a film plot but there are points that are worth encyclopedic coverage. One other source to look at is: "Jennifer, Liam and Josh: An Unauthorized Biography of the Stars of The Hunger Games" by Danny White. This goes into more detail about the early years to at least begin researching other RS.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I am sorry but I can't be neutral on this part. The personal life section must be expanded. He's not gay but he does support gay rights. So...uhm, the personal life section is almost entirely about his advocacy for gay rights. He has to have more of a personal life than that even at the age of 20 something. It isn't that I am looking for a long personal section. They tend to be a little short, but his advocacy is only about philanthropy. We don't want gossip and who he is "dating", but if he is in a serious relationship that may be mentioned in a reliable source.
  • I think the early life section has more that could be added (it also doesn't need to be a long section, just comprehensive). There also should be some education background. Did he attend college? I don't see mention of that.
  • The career sections are great but the reception section seems rather small compared to the career section. He may be young, but he has a large body of work and if you are including a reception section it should cover from his first notable work to his most recent notable work and touch on the biggies in between.
I think at the very least, if you can expand on the personal life section at least 2/3 larger with maybe a mention of politics and other interests (see Jake Gyllenhaal and Ethan Hawke) and, either incorporate the existing reception section into the career section (they go together anyway) or expand on it a bit to have broader coverage of critics reviews etc., I could support this FAC.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for adding some more comments. I'm very eager to keep this ball rolling, so I'll put some serious thought and work into these suggestions. Just to answer one of your quick questions… no, he didn't go to college. He didn't even go to high school. Gloss 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Update: He did apparently attend high school for one semester. Information added. Gloss 01:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Also just to note, there isn't really any confirmation on a relationship at all right now, let alone a serious relationship. Neither the previous relationship or supposed current one have ever been fully confirmed in the first place, so I've come to 100% agree with that information being removed. Gloss 07:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I would look for a source for his home schooling and I would also look for a source for his relationship/s or I would take a moment to reconsider the overall size of the personal section and the undue weight of the gay advocacy issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: - check out this version of the personal life section. This is from before the GA review. The reviewer felt a lot of that information was irrelevant and some more has been chipped away over time. Is there anything in there that you think could be re-inserted? I'm going to re-add the political information back in… that seems ok. Gloss 00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

[outdent] @Mark Miller: So what are your current thoughts? You made some of your own changes to the personal life section. Is that something you feel looks OK now? You mentioned about the reception section, which has been the hardest section to find information for, but I'm still searching. Most comments tend to be about him in a specific role, so finding comments about him as an actor outside of a role is tricky, but at least for now I'm happy with the information in there so far. Gloss 23:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

=/ can't say I'm not trying. Gloss 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller: -> have you seen Gloss' latest comments? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It's more or less a lost cause. I pinged Mark Miller twice here and was also ignored with attempts to contact him on his talk page. Gloss 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Odd, but I seem to remember discussing the issues on my talk page and I made a number of suggestion after those pings and even addressed a few on the article myself. Collapsing a !vote that is clearly opposition is wrong on many levels. Whether you feel it is a lost cause or not, never collapse a !vote in a FAC and title it as if the concerns were all addressed. Some stuff you made excuses for and frankly the writing is not on a par with other Feature Articles yet and seems to fall short of comprehensive to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to contact you four times since the last time we spoke. You addressed your concerns here and I've taken care of all of them. After four messages with no reply, it seems pretty safe to assume you have no more interest in the FAC because I've taken care of everything. If you still stand by your oppose, that've great. But ignoring me just showed me you didn't feel you had anything else to say about the article. Gloss 22:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not sure that you are using the FAC to the standards this venue is used to in the way you closed that !vote but for now I am not neutral or supportive, please respect that. I have and continue to watch the article but was not inclined to support it then. I can look again but much of what I find wrong is the writing and general comprehensiveness of the article. I will take some time to look again and re-review the article but please respect whatever the opinion is.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me add that if closing off your comments was wrong in terms of how things work at FAC, then I apologize. You seem pretty upset about it. But as I did with Snuggum's comments, I used strike-through to show which concerns were taken care of and then once all of the concerns were taken care of, the text was collapsed. Thought it was safe to do the same thing here. But like I said, if that's not how things work, I apologize. Been well over 5 years since my last time at an FAC. Gloss 22:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC) moving comment down so this conversation makes more sense Gloss 22:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-review by Mark Miller[edit]

  • The Personal life section still has the same issue as has nothing that is not gay related. The section has an undue amount of content on his gay advocacy but nothing else (if nothing else, move the last two sentences from the early life section about inspiration to the Personal life section as that does not pertain to his early life really and find at least one more sourced piece of content for that section that isn't puffery etc to be as comprehensive as possible).
  • I've added to this section. Let me know your thoughts! Gloss 07:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Filmography - add notes to all the sections in the film boxes or remove the notes section (but for comprehensiveness it should have notes in all)
I support that if you do what was done on the Gyllenhaal article, split off to a separate, free standing article and just add a link to it at the end of this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Hutcherson has enough to split it off to a separate article, so I'll leave it as it after making your suggested fixes. Gloss 01:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, he is a young and very determined actor. I don't foresee his career stalling from everything I see and believe at the rate he has been working the section will grow rapidly. Splitting is not required but may be a good idea and would certainly help towards keeping these articles consistent, if not I wonder if collapsing is commonly done with FA articles? No, seems not, but it does appear just from the selection of FA actor biographies linked below to be an "either or" situation. Either use the current set boxes for the filmography or split off and just link here, so just adding a note is fine.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the other FA's listed below, none of them have all of the spaces in the notes section filled. Is there something specific that you think should be filled into the blanks? Sorry, I'm just a bit confused. Gloss 07:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. I had not noticed that much. I will not hold you to a higher level. You have done a good deal of work and I feel good enough to support this now.
  • Under Awards and nominations you have the GLAAD award listed. That needs to be moved out of the box as it does not strictly pertain to that sections awards for performances. I suggest simply removing it from the Awards box and leaving the prose as is where it mentions it.
  • Also noting that this was taken care of. Gloss 07:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The writing in general needs copy editing for clarity. For instance, the line: "The day following Catching Fire's United States release, Hutcherson hosted his first episode of Saturday Night Live.[69][70]" This needs a date (and probably quotes around the title of the film for clarity) if even just the day and month or even just the month as context and a point of reference for the reader. Another thing is the way it reads. It states this was his first episode...has he done others? Legitimate question. If he has not, that is a presumptuous statement and if he has, a mention of how many times would be encyclopedic. Also, that whole part is really a mention of his reception so I would move that content to the reception section. Guest appearances on SNL are more public reception subject. In general, the article needs a good copy edit for flow and some clarifications here and there. I believe the reception section may have too many quotes. We don't need to have that many. trim back to just discussing or summarizing what has been said. It seems to "magazine like" coverage to me.
  • I've taken care of the specific requests in this comment, however the need for a copy edit is something I strongly agree with. I believe the prose is pretty good but I do think there's room for improvement. The only problem is getting somebody to copy edit. It needs a fresh pair of eyes. I've read the things on this page 500 times by now. I'm crossing my fingers someone bored looking for a task will come along and see this and copy edit it. I don't have many connections with good copy editors on here so I'll continue to do my best in the meantime. Gloss 06:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I think these are my major issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support FAC for comprehensiveness. Pinging SNUGGUMS to see if their opinion has changed from neutral after improvements have now been made.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Snuggums doesn't often receive pings, for some reason. But I really appreciate your support Mark, and thanks for coming back to re-review. Means a lot. Gloss 12:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I DID recieve this ping, though. I don't know why Justin Timberlake was re-added when being a fan is not by itself worthy of inclusion, and I'm not sure about the second paragraph in "personal life" with sports and such. Still at a neutral. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The Timberlake stuff was never removed. And as for the second paragraph, I was going off of Mark and Starship's suggestions that something else needed to be added to the personal life sections and Hutcherson is actually pretty vocal about his fitness and sports love in different interviews. There's at least 5-6 different interviews/sources in that paragraph which show how it's a pretty big part of his life. I also used got some inspiration from Julianne Moore where it discusses how she is with her fame and personal life, so I figured I'd transition into that and give it some attention as well. Gloss 18:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

If anything, might be worth looking more into his career outside of acting. Overall, I'm neutral now, and will end with that. His relationships can stay or go, no preference there. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from starship.paint[edit]

  • I rechecked my comments, the article seems to have addressed all of them already. Here's my support, and you can hat the above if you wish. Well done, and Happy New Year in advance, @Gloss:. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll go ahead and collapse, this page is getting long. Gloss 04:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90[edit]

  • He is an "American film, television and voiceover actor". Simply saying "actor" should be sufficient in the opening paragraph, as a high number of American actors work in both television and film.
  • "...he landed his first acting role in 2002, in the pilot episode of House Blend. " The comma seems unnecessary.
  • "...and the film adaptations of Bridge to Terabithia (2007), Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008), as well as The Kids Are All Right (2010)." Awkward phrasing, as The Kids Are All Right is not based on a book. I would suggest removing "film adaptations" here.
  • Any reason why his success at the Young Artist Award is in middle of his career description?
  • It originally was about how he won those awards for his work in the films that are mentioned in the previous sentence. But someone had suggested I just leave it as the way it is now. I'm not opposed to taking it out though, so I'll do that. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "...also played with a lead role". "Played with" is awkward. Simply "played" should be enough.
  • "Throughout his career, Hutcherson has expressed an interest in the other side of the film scene, including directing and producing." Awkward phrasing. Can be shortened to simply say: "Hutcherson has expressed an interest in directing and producing".
  • Since he is "heavily" involved in the gay-straight alliance, he must be active in it, so the final sentence seems like repeated information.
Early life
  • "..Hutcherson took it upon himself to go through the yellow pages.." Just saying "went through the yellow pages.." is sufficient.
Acting career
  • "Hutcherson got a start.." Can this be rephrased to something more encyclopedic?
  • "His character Laser in The Kids Are All Right was a teenager with a lesbian couple as parents". Awkward phrasing. Can be changed to "...was the teenage son of a lesbian couple".
  • "Hutcherson's role in the film was seen as a pivotal point in his career where he assured that he would be continuing his acting career long past his days as a child star". According to whom?
  • The heading "continued success" seems like a case of POV, since the previous section doesn't mention anything about achieving success.
  • I've tried something else, let me know if you have a better idea in mind or if the change I made is okay. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Too many quotes in the first paragraph of the The Hunger Games section. And why is there a separate quote from Collins in a quote box when a quote already exits in the prose?
  • "Hutcherson again had to get his body in shape". Not very encyclopedic. Please change this.
  • I am not sure why the Rotten Tomatoes rating is mentioned so often in the article. Most biographies simply go with "positive", "mixed", or "negative" reviews. Also, the 92% audience approval for Catching Fire seems unnecessary.
  • Hutcherson's quote on Mockingjay - Part 1 is huge. Can this be trimmed down and/or paraphrased?
  • "..assured the executive producer role "wasn't just a vanity credit"" Maybe instead of the quote, his production contributions can be mentioned, if available.
  • I've actually looked for more information on this in the past, and I'm not sure if maybe it's because the film hasn't been released yet and still has about a month before the release, but all I've been able to find is the mere fact that he was an exec. producer. Hopefully info on his production contribution shows up when the film is released, or around then. For now, I've removed that bit. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Reception and acting style
  • Per WP: OVERLINK, his film credits don't need to be wikilinked again.
  • Any reason for Mark Levin to say that it was "impossible" for him to have turned him away from the leading role? Without a reason, this sentence serves no real purpose.
  • I had moved the reasoning over to the quote box, so thanks for catching this. I've clarified in the prose. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the quote "For me, I like to do all different types of films and to go from having that awesome [indie] kind of thing that I love doing so much with great characters and a really great script to a bigger kind of studio film, to just cover the whole kind of spectrum of movies is really, really cool." seems limited. This can easily be paraphrased into one short sentence and not lose it's essence.
  • "Over time, he has become known to many, including Lawrence, as "the biggest prankster on set"". Redundant and unnecessary POV.
Personal life
  • ".. he had experience running in a triathlon under his belt and was continuing to train for more". "Under his belt" is not an encyclopedic phrase. Please rephrase. Also, what does "more" signify here, since the triathlon happened when he was 13?
  • "He has always held true to his belief that his fame has not changed him as a person". Again, "held true to his belief" is quite redundant you see.
  • Good job on the last paragraph. Very well-written.
  • Thank you! Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard-work that has gone into this article, and I must praise Gloss for all his efforts. This article seems to be moving in the right direction, although I believe some trimming is in order to tighten the prose and remove some POV and excessive details. I would also like to see comments from seasoned editors like Dr. Blofeld who can guide us more thoroughly. -- KRIMUK90  14:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: I've taken care of all of these notes, and your praise is much appreciated. Gloss 18:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll be willing to support this, given that the excessive praise, as pointed out by Dr. Blofeld, is trimmed down in the reception section. I believe the Jack Lemmon comparison can go, as can Lawrence's overwhelming praise of him. Something about how he chooses his roles, how he prepares for them, his acting style etc. can be included here, instead of giving an undue amount of praise from his directors and co-stars. For actors such as Philip Seymour Hoffman or Julianne Moore or Meryl Streep such "toning" down isn't necessary, as they have established themselves in the industry, but for an up-and-coming actor like Hutcherson, who hasn't had much award success, some trimming down is definitely in order. IMO, it will be beneficial to come up with some negative comments from critics about his performances in general. Surely there are critics who have criticised some of his performances or his choice of roles. Again, I appreciate all the hard-work, and I can understand that sometimes the FAC is a frustrating experience, but the article does need a dose of neutrality. -- KRIMUK90  07:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding the frustration. I do look forward to this being over. But I'm hoping I can resolve all of these concerns in the meantime. Gloss 09:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Krimuk90: So I've since removed a ton of praise, added in a negative comment here and there to help with the balance, and overall added in some things I believe improved the article. I'd love to hear some feedback from you, on the current state and what (if anything) is left to do. Gloss 03:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
@Krimuk90: Only pinging you incase you haven't seen this, as it's almost been 5 days. Gloss 18:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks good to me now. Best of luck! -- KRIMUK90  07:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your review and support! Gloss 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Not had a chance to really look at this and read fully but in glancing at it, Red Dawn really was a bog standard film. I can't see any review, even "escaping embarrassment" as a credible one. I wouldn't mention anything in quotes for that one. I guess at least you don't say it was a masterpiece though! A young Jack Lemmon?? Seems excessive to me, I've seen 5 or 6 films with Josh in I think and I wouldn't consider him anywhere near Jack's level of brilliance, wishful thinking by the director? The prose in numerous places doesn't really appear to be up to scratch, "Hutcherson does his best to maintain a normal life, and says he will often go to a local park to join in on football or soccer games, even if he gets recognized." for instance reads like a narrative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Removed the Red Dawn quote. The Jack Lemmon quote is from the director of the film he made his breakthrough in, so to remove it would make me feel like we're taking personal feelings about the comparison into consideration. I've also cleaned up the sentence about his personal life. If you have any other comments about the prose, I'd very much appreciate it. I've been working on improving this article by myself for the past year or so instead of with a partner or two like a lot of editors are able to do, so it's mostly based off of one editor's writing style, assisted along the way by a variety of reviewers helping to clean it up. Gloss 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, well, it does seem rather generous that's all! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you source the Washington and Chicago Times reviews for Bridge to Terabithia. Also you should name the film critic and say xxx of xxx where possible. Especially if it's somebody like Roger Ebert!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The reviews were sourced from the book (reference #1) but I tracked down the original articles and have added them in. I've also added in the names of the film critics in wherever it had been left out. Gloss 06:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I've improved the prose I believe and did some merging which looks more appropriate I think. You can't really have an acting style and reception section on such a young actor really without it looking like puffery, which it largely was with gushing tributes from directors and costars. It would be different if there was really a fair bit of decent book coverage analysing his acting. I merged in some of the material to the body into production but I do still think that this still needs to be toned down, more quotes removed or paraphrased, and I'm not sure his film work is really strong enough yet to have the material to make this a really good FA article. I know he's been around for over 10 years but it just seems to be lacking something. It's a fairly satisfactory account of his career to date but difficult to support as an actual featured quality article at present. If it passed, would I and others genuinely consider it an example of our best quality work? I wouldn't, would you? It's not your fault Gloss really, and I don't think there's much you can do about it at present. I think it would be best to wait five years or so and wait for more depth and coverage. It's decent for GA but really doesn't have the material for me to make it worthy of further promotion. I'm pretty sure attempts to make it look more worthwhile like that reception section make it look like puffery.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, saying to wait five years or so for more information seems completely opinionated and not based on any kind of criteria. The article covers his entire career, despite how short of a career it may be compared to some other actors' articles. There is no criteria for an article to be featured that states their career needs to be a certain length. Give him another 5 years and you'll probably get another 4-5 films added… is that really a big difference between then and now? If you wouldn't consider this to be an example of our best quality work, then you wouldn't support this FAC which is obviously OK. But I wouldn't have nominated it for FAC if I didn't think it was. The section you're referring to is something that a few other editors have requested, so that's why it's there. Going off the information that exists for his career, I'm doing the best I can to avoid it being puffery but still containing a solid amount of information. Over time, I'm sure as new information is added, some may become less important. But that doesn't mean the article as it stands is suffering. Gloss 00:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd really like to discuss this here further. You completely removed the reception and acting style, and personal life sections. You put info on his inspirations on top of the section where we talk about his early life. Surely you see that doesn't make sense. It's not like he cited them as inspirations when he was 10, while getting his career started. But I'd like the other editors who commented here to weigh in if you feel so strongly about removing those sections. Your claim that he's too young to have a reception and acting style-type section feels like another personal opinion. If he's an actor that has been widely discussed during his career, there's absolutely no reason to say he's too young to have a section for that information, I feel. Gloss 00:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not so much he is too young as such, he's had a fair career already, it's that he obviously yet doesn't have a wealth of scholarly material discussing his actual work to make such a section valid, it reads as pure fan cruft. If you had some scholarly material on themes and style in with some of the gushing quotes it would be more valid and stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Pinging @Mark Miller:, since a lot of the review he gave centered around these two sections. Gloss 04:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Dr. Blofeld is pretty much right on everything but waiting five years. Time is not an issue with a feature quality article, even if the artist is young. It is the body of work and the coverage. What this article really lacks is a smooth copy edit, more sources, better summaries of the sources and really looking at other FA quality biographies, not juts actor biographies of a similar type.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
What I mean Mark is that it doesn't have the scholarly material to really look like anything other than a recital of imdb with some gushing quotes and tributes. So in that respect, I do think time is an issue. When there's clearly a distinct lack of biographical or a wealth of material other than fluff to add depth to the article, I can't support that as an FA until there's more "meat on the bones" so to speak and it reads better. Perhaps there is actually a lot more biographical material available but Gloss has not seen it. Does he have access to Highbeam and etc? I think you'd be amazed at how much material can be gleaned from such sources. It is possible to get it to FA on technical merit and fairly comprehensive outline of his career, I can think of several younger actor biographies at FA which passed without much real coverage, I wish you luck with it, but I don't think it's worthy of it. The main obstacle is really depth and neutrality. As if it's not enough for all those gushing comments in the acting body, you then have more of them in a section dedicated to it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the main concern here is the excessive praise in the reception section. Although I believe him to be a good actor, I agree with Blofeld that Hutcherson has very little experience to warrant such high praise, like the Jack Lemmon quote. I believe that some trimming is really in order. -- KRIMUK90  07:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely understandable. I'll work on this so more and get back to you (hopefully tomorrow) when it's all done. Gloss 08:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

*Oppose I see the cruft section has been restored despite my efforts to neutralise it. I'd be most concerned if this was passed in its current state.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You made a very bold choice in completely re-working the article. I've explained above why I wanted to discuss the changes here first and attempt to work with you to fix the issue you've presented but also not completely getting personal opinions involved. Gloss 08:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I cut out a big chunk of the reception section just now, as per you and the other's comments above. I'm absolutely open to making big changes if that's what the article needs. But I'm afraid you're jumping to an oppose means you're not willing to continue collaborating with me on this since I reverted some of your edits in an attempt to discuss. So if that's the case, I'll accept it and move on. Gloss 08:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't have to discuss changes with you. You don't own the article. You kept on and on for me and others to review this so I did, and I made some major changes which I think improve how encyclopedic it is and at least give it a better chance of passing. If you insist on having an acting style and reception section you'd better make sure you can find the scholarly material and decent analysis and coverage to make it stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed to own the article. You made changes I disagreed with and wanted to discuss. That's how this encyclopedia works. Discussions instead of edit wars, at least that's what I think. You made changes where his influences were moved to the top of his career section and it all didn't make much sense. I didn't keep on and on, I asked twice and when I was ignored the second time I dropped it and let it go, while another editor pinged you into this discussion. Please, don't stick around if you feel like you're only doing me a favor. I'm only interested in improving this article, not gaining the review of someone who doesn't want to be here. Gloss 09:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ian Rose You might want to examine this blind revert. I spent a fair bit of time last night copyediting it and improving readability and neutrality. It was more than simply removing those sections, I merged a lot of it and rewrote a fair bit of it in places which I believe was an improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What is this, tattle-tailing? Please don't call my edit a blind revert, unless you're openly admitting an assumption of bad faith. If you'd even looked in the history, I've since added back in a large majority of your changes. Gloss 09:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
No, not tattle-tailing, just a concern that this has been open a full month and when an experienced editor stops by to try to make some considerable improvements and state their concern with it you become all defensive. I was asked by several people, including yourself to take a good look at this. I did so, and made changes I thought necessary. You seem too hostile here to real criticism, so I'm not sure FAC is for you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
An editor's first FAC is usually a little difficult to handle. Given the work Gloss has put into it, I think he was a little rattled with the major changes, and thus reverted your edits. I think he has realised that it wasn't the right move, and will hopefully not be as defensive to criticism from here-on. Gloss, I have known Blofeld for far too long to know that he his edits will only improve the article, and I hope you can see that now. If we can forgive Gloss for that revert, I think we can manage to get the article into good shape. -- KRIMUK90  09:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
His second, and looking at the current article does not seem to have yet realised that it wasn't the right move as my prose and paraphrasing improvements to the career do not seem to have been fully restored, even if he insists on the reception and personal life sections. I agree the article visually might look better with a reception section and personal life section for balance, but when you really read and look into it you'll see how weak it is when you remove the puffery. If Gloss could really find some strong material about his acting and some decent personal life info, at least a compromise could be made once dialling down the gushing tributes. I'm not sure how presenting Saturday Night Live and being a prankster is encyclopedic coverage of his acting! You move that to the appropriate section in career and what are you left with? "Josh is awesome!"♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I've now made some updates while retaining as much of the material I could and tried to tone it down a little. Hopefully the current version will be acceptable, and it can be worked on from there. I included the recent negative quote you added. It could still really use some further research in things like Highbeam I think to really try to glean some more material to reinforce it and push it over the line, but my subscription has not yet been renewed. Perhaps google books will pick something up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems I was right on Highbeam, fortunately I can pick up a bit of text but not access the full articles. Google books on the other hand has virtually nothing of substance written about him as I suspected. At some point it would be good to have some critical commentary on his acting by authors and scholars to reinforce it. I'm sure eventually there will be biographies published. You can only go by what material is available right now though. It's not too bad in its (current) condition, but I still think it's lacking that little something to really make it passable. There's still quite a few unsourced reviews too, the BBC and Chicago Times ones stand out in particular.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
They're now sourced. Gloss 16:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. Can you try to add a bit more background/production info and character descriptions on some of them to try to make the article more readable/informative? Obviously nothing excessive, but I think in some places you can afford to be a bit more detailed over certain films and reinforce the article. If you do that I think it'll improve the overall tone too and disperse some of the reviews. Other than that it's difficult to really find a wealth of information. If we can get this to a level where it's good as it's going to get based on the limited resources available then I do think it is possible for this to pass, we do have similar FAs on some of the Indian and other younger actors. I do think that it may be a long time before there are really biographies and a wealth of biographical material about him though. There's a fair few self-published recent resource books on him and The Hunger Games cast from people looking to make a quick buck but still very limited.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can do that later tonight when I get back home. If there are specific spots you're looking for more information, let me know. Gloss 17:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The period between 2007 and 2010 I think is a bit weak at present but in a fair few areas I think you could elaborate a little. Even if some films were not mega successful blockbusters, although not for the very minor earlier roles. Every film doesn't need it of course, but a nice mix in places of filming info which implicates Josh, a character/plot basic summary or a brief critical analysis of the film or character, or some brief background info on him and CGI during production and how certain things were done to make his characters on film or whatever might also be of some use. It depends on the film, whatever you think somebody reading about Josh might like to know about his film work. Something though that won't be enough to detract and bloat it, but which succeeds in making reading it a bit more pleasurable and informative if you know what I mean. Don't worry about overcooking that aspect for now though as it can always be trimmed afterwards. I'm pretty sure afterwards it'll read better for it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think I've added in a good amount of information on some of the films that were less-covered before. I'm trying not to bloat it but also not trying to add in irrelevant information on films that were very small points in his career. What are your current thoughts? Gloss 22:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Only pinging you incase you haven't seen this, as it's almost been 5 days. Gloss 18:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks OK.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

Nope, I am not going to seriously review this, but I have only two comments: please empty the lead of ref's per WP:LEAD, and try expanding the infobox. Otherwise, just remove it per WP:DISINFOBOX. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: I've added his residence to the infobox, as that's sourced in the article. But I'm not sure what else would belong in there? Do you have any suggestions? I've also removed the ref from the lead. Gloss 18:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I've also added nationality in. It's rough with this one. He has no specified religious views, did not attend college to have an alma mater, he doesn't have a spouse, children, or notable family members, etc. For an FA like Jake Gyllenhaal, if he didn't have those notable family members, his would be even shorter than Hutcherson's currently is. Gloss 18:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for solving my comments. Hope this FAC gets promoted. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain[edit]

Oppose after a review of the prose and sources. Two big concerns:

  • I'm of a mind to agree with Dr. Blofeld about the "Acting style" section. There is no real body of journalism to back up a section like this. It's mostly comprised of sources in which he's talking about himself and the types of roles he takes—that has nothing to do with acting style or any serious journalists writing about his acting style. The only statement in that whole section that might pass for "acting style" is "With a comic acting touch and timing that has been noted from an early age, Hutcherson has been both compared to Jeff Goldblum and a young Jack Lemmon." Unfortunately, it's sourced to a questionable book (White, more about that below) and one snippet from a news article. That's not sufficient to do any kind of serious writing about Hutcherson's acting style.
  • On the topic of the White book, which you cite ten times: Who is this author? A former football player? How/why is he qualified to write serious entertainment biographies? I sought more information about the "Unauthorized Biography" and found no serious reviews, no references to it in other reliable sources, and a tiny publisher that accepts direct submissions (a sign of a vanity/self-publishing house). Reviews of White's books are mostly comprised of school-age girls (the primary audience) commenting that they keep the book on their bedside table. Those are a lot of red flags for a source you use so prominently. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Understandable. Do you think it should be used less, or that perhaps this one shouldn't be used at all? Gloss 15:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed more than half of the uses of the book. I think the spots it's left in should be okay, but please do let me know. I've also removed the acting style section, merged some information into other sections and removed the rest. Gloss 16:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's probably OK for anything that is a straightforward fact and not analytic in nature, if that makes sense. I thank you for your quick response. I will review the changes you made and revisit my comments very shortly—I know it can be frustrating to get new opposition when the nomination has been running this long, so I thank you for your patient response as well. --Laser brain (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If there's anything this particular FAC has taught me, it's some extra skills in patience ;) Gloss 16:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The changes you made addressed my concerns, so I am striking my opposition. I'm afraid I don't have time for a full prose review, so I am unable to support. Good luck! --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Tks for that, Andy. Gloss, would I be right in gathering that this will be your first successful FAC if it's promoted? If so it's common for the coordinators to request a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and perhaps Andy could look at that (unless he's done so as part of the above review and I missed it)... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Ian Rose: Second, although it's been years since my first (under my old username). Gloss 17:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that I'm content with the neutrality and prose work on it now and would lean on weak support, but still remain relatively neutral given what I've said previously. The problem I think is the lack of scholarly and biographical material which can add weight to the article. A lot of existing material is too weak really to justify an acting style section, glad to see it's been removed. Given time I think it will improve. Me personally, I'd have waited a few years until it becomes more resourceful, but in fairness he's no spring chicken as an actor compared to some and we do have similar FAs on some of the younger actors which also suffer from a real depth of coverage. You can only go with the material you have at the time of writing, and I've had a good look through my sources and am convinced it's pretty comprehensive. What I might suggest Gloss, is if you can try to access more of Josh's interviews, whether on camera or from magazines and try to glean more biographical content from them. I did a similar thing with Dolph Lundgren, given the lack of real biographical coverage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I'd be surprised if there's a written interview with him that I haven't read while putting this article together! But in reality, I'm sure there is. Good suggestion though, and regardless of if this FAC passes or not, I'll undoubtably look into this more. Gloss 13:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks found some problems:

  • "Also born and raised in the state of Kentucky, his parents met in high school in Dry Ridge" is cited to pages 6-8 of this source - the first part appears on page 5, I don't see the second anywhere
  • The part about meeting in high school is in the other book, I've re-added that source to the end of this sentence. Gloss 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, but the first part is still on page 5 and we're still citing pages 6 through 8...Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, missed this. Fixed. Gloss 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "He attended New Haven Elementary School in Union until he began his career at the age of 9" - source doesn't specify when he left school
  • Information was in FN15, added it to the end of this. Gloss 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "he returned to Kentucky to go to school for only one semester at Ryle High School" - source only says Ryle is his alma mater; this detail is actually in FN15
  • Fixed! Gloss 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The house cost Hutcherson $2.5 million (not $3 million). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed! And thank you for finding these problems. Gloss 05:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: are you happy with the fixes (and reasonably confident overall as far as accurate use of sources goes)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • No on both counts, for the moment - one fix above yet to be made, and checking a few more sources I find that "displaying a passion for basketball, football, tennis and bowls" is not in the source given. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Above fix has been corrected, and the source for the sports passion is after the following sentence (about his triathlon) so I've added it in again in that spot.. and removed basketball (not included in that particular source) and bowls, I'm not sure who put that in there. I'd be very confused if it was myself, because I don't remember seeing that anywhere. Gloss 22:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay. There still seem to be problems with sources supporting text - for example, the source for "Hutcherson and Queen Latifah presented trophies together to four young actors" says that the trophies were presented to young volunteers, not actors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for catching it. Please do let me know if you find anymore. Both of these examples are text added in a recent copy edit by Dr. Blofeld which I didn't fully review, rather AGF'ed that all of the sources added supported the text added. I've made the correction here. Gloss 05:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I've gone through most of the article and double checked that each source supports the text it's citing. Are there any more that you've found? Gloss 06:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ian Rose: It's been over a week since I've last gotten a reply, though I have tried. I'm not sure what I should be doing, if anything at this point, or just continue slightly stressing over this FAC still being open! Cheers, Gloss 04:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sega Saturn[edit]

Nominator(s): TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Sega Saturn, a video game console that has been the object of intense Internet speculation and rumors, yet which I believe Wikipedia covers as accurately and impartially as the available reliable sources allow. Improvements have been made since the previous FAC, which included a thorough source review, and I will add a few more tweaks in a moment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Red Phoenix let's talk...:

TheTimesAreAChanging, I'm so glad you've decided to bring this back to FAC. I am declaring my intention to review this article and will be doing so in the next few days. Red Phoenix let's talk... 00:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Any progress, Red Phoenix?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to proceed as soon as I can. Real life is kicking my tail right now; hopefully it won't be too long until I can devote some time to this. I do really want to give this a review. Red Phoenix let's talk... 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • @TheTimesAreAChanging: One quick one here to start: All of your images look good and properly handled except for File:Sega Saturn with Netlink inside.jpg. Take a look at your Pluto source; it's exactly the same image but zoomed out. I've also seen it in IGN as well, and as a result I really don't think it's actually a GNU from the uploader; it's more likely it was ripped off from the internet and is actually a copyright violation. The uploader even said on the page that it was an image he had on his computer and doesn't provide a decent source. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Make sure to use the WayBack Machine to archive Allgame links; the site is going down today. I know I'll end up with a lot of articles I'll have to do this with myself.
  • Fourth paragraph of Technical specifications seems a little small and isolated in the middle of nowhere. If it can't be expanded, can it be combined?

We'll start there; hopefully during this busy season I can find time to go through this more in depth. Red Phoenix let's talk... 17:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

As a Sonic fan I've learned to accept projects not quite being finished before their deadlines, but I don't want this to experience the same fate like last time. I thought it looked great before, but a further look can't hurt... and I am too tired to give one now. Be back in short order. Tezero (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Okay, I know the page is on the large side already, but I'd prefer the second paragraph of the intro to be cut down. As a rule of thumb, if an article's intro, including only the actual text, doesn't fit entirely on my laptop screen, I consider it to be too long. In this case, I'd trim this paragraph something like so, only keeping the bold information and wording, and possibly also trim a little of the first and third:

Development of the Saturn began in 1992, the same year Sega's groundbreaking 3D Model 1 arcade hardware debuted. The system adopted parallel processors before the end of 1993, and was designed around a new CPU specially commissioned by Sega from Japanese electronics company Hitachi. When Sega learned the full capabilities of the forthcoming Sony PlayStation console in early 1994, the company responded by incorporating an additional video display processor into the Saturn's design. Successful on launch in Japan due to the popularity of a port of the arcade game Virtua Fighter, the system debuted in the United States in a surprise launch four months before its scheduled release date, but failed to sell in large numbers. After the launch, Sega's upper management structure changed with the departures of chairman David Rosen and Sega of Japan CEO Hayao Nakayama from their roles in the American division, and Sega of America CEO Tom Kalinske from the company altogether. This led to the additions of Shoichiro Irimajiri and Bernie Stolar to Sega of America, who guided the Saturn to its discontinuation in 1998 in North America, three years after its release. Although the system is remembered for several well-regarded games, including Nights into Dreams..., the Panzer Dragoon series, and the Virtua Fighter series, the Saturn's complex system architecture resulted in the console receiving limited third-party support, which inhibited commercial success. The failure of Sega's development teams to finish and release a game in the Sonic the Hedgehog series, known in development as Sonic X-treme, has also been attributed as a factor in the console's poor performance.

  • "Prior to development of the Saturn, the Sega Genesis was Sega's entry into the fourth generation of video game consoles. It was released in Japan as the Mega Drive in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe as the Mega Drive in 1990." - Awkward organization. I'd simply say that the Genesis, known in Europe and Japan as the Mega Drive, was...
  • Development looks fine from a skim, but the technical aspects of consoles and computers bore me to tears so I couldn't give it more than that.
  • "1:1 ratio" - using Arabic numerals seems a little informal
  • "Sony subsequently unveiled the retail price for the PlayStation, with speaker Steve Race taking the stage, saying "$299", and walking away to applause" - the "with [pres-prog.-verb]" form is awkward; try "Sony subsequently ... PlayStation: speaker Steve Race took the stage, ..."
  • "at Sony Computer Entertainment of America" - why hasn't SCA been linked or mentioned earlier, given how much the PS1's already been talked about?
  • "in "a series of outlandish TV commercials" starting in 1997" - why quote this? The wording doesn't seem important; we don't even know whom it's from.
  • "including Virtua Fighter RPG" - First of all, the link should be to Role-playing video game. Second, introduce it like the person hasn't heard of it before, more like "including a role-playing game in the Virtua Fighter series".

Read everything until the Sonic X-treme section. Tezero (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I will incorporate every one of your changes, except your proposed lead. I appreciate a short lead, as seen in Dreamcast, and may try to trim this one even more than I already have. However, I believe that dropping off mid-sentence after "visual display processor", removing the names of the Sega executives, and compounding the skewed weight towards the unreleased Sonic X-Treme by removing well-regarded games that were actually released would be a mistake.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm sorry! Here, I'm waiting for a massive file to render so I'll give you more. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "and by the time the Saturn was discontinued had sold 2 million consoles in the region" - Um... how should I parse this? Sega sold 2 million or the Saturn had? Or the PlayStation had?
  • "Lack of distribution" - ???
  • "installed base" - I know what you mean, but that's a confusing choice of wording.
  • "The decision to abandon the Saturn effectively left the Western market without Sega games for over a year" - Effectively? How many were released? Could you name a few that were?
  • Why is "Sega Pluto" bolded?

I'll look at the rest later. Tezero (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Sega sold 2 million Saturn units. Is "Sega announced its final games for the North American market on March 14, 1998, and by the time the system was discontinued had sold 2 million Saturn units in the region, compared to 10.75 million PlayStation consoles sold by Sony at that time" any more clear?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You may check the source on Google Scholar, but it doesn't provide much additional detail. As discussed in the "Launch" section, only four retailers carried the Saturn during its surprise launch, and this prompted others to drop Sega from their lineup. Whether or not the author is overstating the significance of this problem is difficult to assess, because few sources discuss it, but anecdotally it does seem the PlayStation and N64 were easier to find in the U.S. at least. In addition, Sega themselves (or Sega of America) infamously released Saturn games from Burning Rangers to Panzer Dragoon Saga in extremely limited quantities in their rush to make way for the Dreamcast (or because they thought such games could appeal to no more than a small, niche group of Westerners). On an unrelated note, this is also something that should have been considered for the Sega Genesis article, as Sega's aggressive advertising was largely an attempt to break Nintendo's "monopoly" by raising enough of a stink to get retailers like Wal-Mart to carry the Genesis.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't asking for detail, only for clarification about the vague wording. You might change this to something more specific about lack of stores carrying it, since "lack of distribution" could imply, among other things, that plenty of stores carried Saturns but didn't have many units in stock at any given time, or that not a lot of them got sold-through. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the latter interpretation is tenable, but I have revised the sentence: "Lack of distribution has been cited as a significant factor contributing to the Saturn's limited installation base, as the system's surprise launch damaged Sega's reputation with key retailers." In the hope that this may aid the reader, I have also added a little more detail to "Launch" and provided a quote from the source.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Player base? Owner base? Installation base? Either of the first two with "pool" instead of "base"? I'm not picky. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for the Saturn dried up by early- to mid-1998. There was The House of the Dead (March 1998), Panzer Dragoon Saga (April 1998), Shining Force 3 and Burning Rangers (May 1998), and not a whole lot else. Offhand, I can't think of any first-party Saturn games from 1999 leading up to the Dreamcast's September 9th launch. The language used echoes the source exactly, so I don't see what the issue is.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We're not chained to the language used in any particular source - if we were, plagiarism wouldn't be an issue. You might want to include a few of those for context. Tezero (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Remember, in the preceding paragraph the reader has already learned that "Sega announced its final games for the North American market on March 14, 1998". According to the source, those games were The House of the Dead, Shining Force III, and Burning Rangers. They were not the final first-party Saturn games (parts 2 and 3 of Shining Force III, for example, were released in the following months in Japan), and this announcement does not sync up precisely with IGN's vague reference to "the Western market", because the Saturn lasted somewhat longer in Europe. However, if the reader already knows that the final North American games were announced in March 1998 and that the Dreamcast would not reach the West until late 1999, I'm not sure further explanation is required. Launch games, last games, ect., are not necessarily notable on their own terms (if they are, they might be better covered in "Game library"); and it's not our job to question a reliable source for using terms like "Western market" or "effectively", unless we can prove they are mistaken.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't be sure, but there may have been a stub article about the Pluto, which would have been deleted. At the moment, there is an anchor ensuring that any search for "Sega Pluto" leads to the brief mention here, hence the bolding. I unbolded for now, as it may put unnecessary emphasis on the alleged prototype.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "a port of Sonic 3D Blast" - might be worth saying that it was an enhanced port, with better graphics, different music, and new special stages
  • Also, Sonic 3D Blast has an article, and Sonic Jam at least has a section in a larger article. Bug! should also be linked.
  • "failed to catch on with audiences in the way Sonic had" - ambiguous: the Sonic series as a whole, X-treme from what the public knew of it, Sonic R, 3D Blast, or Jam?
  • "and retrospective coverage of the game has been less positive" - a brief explanation of why (even just an extra clause caboosed on) would be nice
  • "Some of the games that made the Saturn popular in Japan, such as Grandia[18] and the Sakura Wars series" - Put a comma after "series", and consider mentioning that these were RPGs, not 3D platformers.
  • "At the time of its release, Famicom Tsūshin scored the Saturn console 24 out of 40 possible points, higher than the PlayStation's 19 out of 40" - Any fuller review?
  • The first paragraph of Reception and legacy is seeded throughout with the word "score" and variations thereof; I suggest rewording a few.
  • Also, I have no idea how well the Saturn stacked up in review scores compared to the N64 and very little compared to the PS1.
  • Did any of these so effusive critics explain what was so gilded about the Saturn's library?
  • I'd prefer the categories to be alphabetized, but not a big deal.

And that's it! I'm trusting that the sourcing hasn't changed much, so I won't be doing a source review or spotchecks. Tezero (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have access to more period-specific system reviews from the gaming press, certainly not Famitsu (which has been there since this article included only about three dozen citations), but I have done my best to address most of your concerns. BTW, if you want a good contemporary review of Bug!, try this blog. I distinctly recall trying to track down a critique of comparable quality in reliable sources, to no avail.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Huh. Seems like no matter whether a reviewer does or doesn't let a game's "classic" age blind them when reviewing it, I'm unsatisfied. Ah, whatever, that's too bad that more detailed reviews weren't available. I can support this article's candidacy now, at any rate; nice work. Tezero (talk) 05:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from hahnchen[edit]

  • Comment - Too much weight is placed upon the cancellation of Sonic X-Treme, a title's whose importance is mostly justified by wishful conjecture. You spend more time on Sonic X-Treme than the entirety of the Saturn game library. - hahnchen 17:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Using File:NiGHTs_into_Dreams_Spring_Valley.jpg - a screenshot of the HD remake of Nights, even if labelled, is misleading. - hahnchen 18:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll change the screenshot; I have a better one in mind. While you raise a valid point about X-Treme, I trimmed over 2,000 characters from that section around the time of the GA Review (and hid Naka's relief over the cancellation, one of the best parts of the story, in a citation), but was instructed to add the fourth paragraph during the previous FAC. I can look into trimming it, and no-one is more skeptical about the way X-Treme was shaping up than me, but it is worth noting that some of the wild speculation comes from RS like IGN--and Wikipedia is based on RS, unless they can be proven wrong, which they cannot because the game was never released.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • On reflection, I agree that this section--originally copied from the GA Sonic X-treme--needs to be cut substantially.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Satisfactory?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd probably cut the last two sentences of the first paragraph. But those two paragraphs are enough to describe why there's no Saturn Sonic. - hahnchen 00:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment (citations)[edit]

The article looks comprehensive and generally well-structured, but it is overcited in many sections; multiple citations should be considerably trimmed (improved, see below):

  • Simple statements of fact should only have 1 source. If multiple sources exist, the most reliable one covering the whole statement should be used.
  • Several review or critic summaries include up to 7 citations, but actually lack factual details. It would be a lot better - and informative for the reader - to limit such overviews to the 2-3 most comprehensive reviews and include some details from those sources.
  • If multiple citations are used to source a possibly controversial fact, 2-3 of the most reliable sources should suffice. Any more citations will actually weaken the sourced claim.
  • In general, single statements should not be pasted together from multiple sources, whenever possible (sometimes it's unavoidable). See WP:SYNTHESIS for a possible risk of such sourcing.

Please check the whole text and remove redundant citations; the current usage is jarring for readers (and makes verifying the content difficult for reviewers). I'll leave detailed reviews to the game experts, and will strike out my oppose, when the handling of citations has been improved. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

GermanJoe, I have trimmed dozens of citations. Does the article now meet your expectations, or are further cuts needed? On the reviews front, I have emphasized the common criticism that Daytona was not accurate to the arcade version, expounded on the short length and limited availability of Burning Rangers, and consolidated several reviews into single citations (the esoteric and mostly 2D nature of Nights was already discussed). (I would love to go even further and explain that Daytona ran at 20 FPS versus the 60 FPS arcade game, whereas a few months later Virtua Fighter 2 ran at 60 FPS with better than arcade resolution, but the reviews I found weren't that informative. Moreover, its hard to get too detailed without crossing into WP:UNDUE territory.) No more than three citations are currently used for any statement, and there are specific reasons in each case why I used the citations I did. Many of them lead simply to a "cf." or additional note that provides further context to the narrative covered in the body.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the trimming, I have changed my vote to "comment" above. There are probably a few more possible spots, but I agree, it's a case-by-case editorial decision. Just avoid overciting relatively uncontroversial statements. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Dank[edit]

I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Generally a very good read. The only things that jumped out were a few mistakes with the citations in the body of the article, and upon checking some links that needs dealing with.

  • In first paragraph of "Launch" section - "Virtua Fighter, a nearly indistinguishable port of the popular arcade game, sold at a nearly one-to-one ratio with the Saturn hardware at launch and was crucial to the system's early success in Japan.[10][32][11]" The citations are out of numeric sequence. This needs addressing.
  • In the third paragraph of the same section - "Within two days of its September 9, 1995 launch in North America, the PlayStation (backed by a large marketing campaign[57][42]) sold more units than the Saturn had in the five months following its surprise launch, with 100,000 units presold in advance and sell-outs reported throughout the U.S.[41][58]" Same as above, for the first pair of citations.
  • In final paragraph of same section - "Tekken surpassed Virtua Fighter in popularity due to its superior graphics and nearly arcade-perfect console port, becoming the first million-selling PlayStation title.[68][64][69]" same as above.

That's the references and now for the other stuff.

  • The link to Sega Pluto points straight back to this page.
  • The links to Chris Senn and True color both lead to disambiguation pages.
  • You should go through the article's references and make sure the dating method is consistent. While most used the numeric ymd method, there were more than a few that used month-day-year (eg, June 11, 2007). Citation dates really need to be consistent in an FA.
  • The game reviews from Edge are redirecting. It's just a simple matter of the old url featuring "review" and the new ones saying "reviews". It's a very simply matter of updating the urls.

Once these are dealt with, I think I can Support this article's promotion. Once they are dealt with. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed all of your comments, with one exception—I don't see where Sega Pluto is linked in this article?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I've looked too, and I can't see it either. I did use the Disambig links rather than my eyes. And speaking of my eyes, I've seen a couple of things I missed: Ref 77 as red "Check date values in: |accessdate=" message that needs dealing with, and Refs 19 and 130 are unarchived 1Up references. As the site is pretty much dead, this needs addressing.
Fixed the date. The 1UP references are archived.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Good. As I said above, I support this article now. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Does this FAC need source and image reviews, even if perfunctorily, if it had them last time? (Sorry; I need something to keep this from going totally inactive.) Tezero (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If no images have been changed or added since the last nom, then I'd expect Nikkimaria's from the previous to stand. I'd like to see a source review from Nikki or Laser brain this time round though. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Freikorp[edit]

I'll review this either later today or tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Support: A fantastic read; it's been a while since an article of this size kept me as interested as this one did. The article is certainly broad in its coverage and well focused, and I must commend the amount of work that has been done in preparation for this FAC. I've come into this conversation late, after all outstanding concerns were already addressed, so it wasn't a total surprise that after a full read nothing strikes me as falling short of FAC standards, though I should note i'm relatively new to reviewing at FAC. Accordingly, I limited my previous two reviews to source checks, though I note Ian Rose requested a source review from either Nikkimaria or Laser brain on December 30. Ian, is a source review still needed for this to pass FAC? And if so, considering nobody else has done one would you accept one that came from me? I don't want to go to the effort if you'd only accept one from a considerably more experienced reviewer. Freikorp (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Freikorp, thanks for commenting and the offer to source review. I don't want to in any way discourage you from undertaking source reviews (this discussion at my talk page goes into what's needed, including a link to Nikki's guide) but in this case I would prefer to see Nikki or Laser brain involved, partly to follow up on GermanJoe's points above re. citations. Just FTR, as I understand that this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, I'd normally also be looking for a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, but a very extensive content check of references was undertaken at the article's first FAC, so I don't require that this time round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox do not appear to be sourced in the article body
  • "Silicon Graphics subsequently collaborated with Nintendo on the Nintendo 64" - do we really need three sources here?
  • Quotes of longer than about 40 words should be blockquoted
  • Don't use formatting like |publisher=''Chicago Tribune'' - publication titles should be in the "work" parameter, not publisher
  • Some periodicals include publisher, others don't - be consistent
  • Nintendo Power is a work and should be italicized
  • FN27, 106, 167, 193: missing italics
  • FN38 is in Japanese
  • FN123, 124: page(s)?
  • FN125: volume formatting doesn't match other periodicals
  • How are you ordering the Bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I put the titles of the books in alphabetical order. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns with a few recent edits, except with regard to the Japanese language source (given this article is about a Japanese company, is that really such a problem?) and footnotes 124/125—I will have to see if I can find that information, because those citations appear to have been copied from the FA Sega Genesis by another user.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe they meant that you should have "|language=Japanese" in the reference since the text is in Japanese. I added it for you. --PresN 19:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Anyway, while I was able to find this scan of the Man!ac source, the page number is not visible. As for Screen Digest, something tells me Red Phoenix would have provided the page if he had it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: just to confirm, are you happy with responses/actions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm still seeing some details in the infobox that are unsourced - I don't know enough about video games to be able to tell whether these would be common knowledge, but my sense is that some at least would not. I would also suggest adding the scan of the Man!iac source to the citation, for convenience. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
"Manufacturer", "type", "retail availability", "discontinued", "units sold", "CPU", "storage", "graphics", "online services", "predecessor", and "successor" are all sourced in the body; "media" is sourced either with the provided citation or in the body; "generation" isn't directly stated in the body but should be common knowledge.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKiernan, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]


Nominator and main editor User:Mav semi-retired; notified 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Automatically included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not hold the standard that is expected, and has not done so for a significant time. It even has issue tags that have been present, but without improvement. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

CFCF, see the instructions at WP:FAR. Was the article talk page notified in advance? If so, then you should post a link to the talk notification done earlier, and do the notifications of significant contributors and WikiProjects (see top of the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

As there does not appear to have been any talk-page discussion, I am placing this review on hold. If after a week or two insufficient progress has been made the review should be reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok - at FAR now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Paulins Kill[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Rivers, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject Geology

Before I started editing Paulins Kill, there were multiple unsourced paragraphs and sentences. Digging deeper in just half the article, I've tagged multiple cited paragraphs as original research or verification needed. Since this subject matter is outside my scope, please check my work.

This article's major contributions was the result of User:ExplorerCDT, then later one or more of his sockpuppets. Paulins Kill is listed on User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup as a possible WP:CCI. I've added numerous URLs to "Books and printed materials" to aid in this review. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note: This FAR was previously put on hold to give editors some time to try addressing issues raised above and on the article's talk page. (While it was on hold, I performed a copyedit and rewrote/re-sourced the Watershed section, so I am recused on this one.) Outstanding concerns at the moment include potential copyright issues mentioned above (although none have been identified thus far), and the verifiability of the Early settlement section, where page numbers were not provided in many book citations. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

On talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey, User talk:Sportskido8

The article was promoted in November 2006 and has not been kept up to featured article standards. I'll outline below some specific issues, but overall there are a lot of citation issues, dead links, and prose problems.

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • A copyedit would help here. The writing style seems just slightly outdated and has not been kept up with since the FAC was passed, specifically all of the information about the team that has been plugged in since 2006. Examples include:
  • "Martin Brodeur, their longtime goalie signed to the team for two additional years, and ended speculation that his career was over. He will enter his 21st season, after turning 40 on May 6, 2012, during the Stanley Cup Playoffs second round, game 4 against the Philadelphia Flyers." -- this has passed by now?
  • "Goalie Johan Hedberg and rookie goalie Keith Kinkaid were used when Brodeur was injured however neither of them performed well enough to help the Devils put anything together."
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Article doesn't neglect any major facts, as I'll explain a few points down.. it instead has too much information in many spots.
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • For some of the older history, it's okay. Anything from 2001 through present time, have to say no.
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Some spots need attention.. for example "The team would now be playing right in the middle of the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut tri-state area, home to the three-time defending Stanley Cup champion New York Islanders, as well as the very popular New York Rangers." --- "the very popular New York Rangers"?
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • No problems here.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • Doesn't look too bad, however per WP:LEDE it shouldn't have any citations in it. All of the info is covered and sourced in the article.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • I believe this is still pretty OK, compared with all of the other NHL team articles. I do wonder, though if any of the "Team identity" or "Players and personnel" subsections can be combined?
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • No, for the most part. A good chunk of sources are not consistently formatted, many aren't even slightly formatted.
  • Many spots in the article are currently not sourced at all, mainly in the "2001–2007: A third Cup and the lockout" and "2007–2013: Move to Newark and Return to the Finals" sections. The first three paragraphs in the 2007-2013 section don't have a single source, as well as two paragraphs in the middle, and the final two paragraphs at the end of the section.
  • There are sections that are completely unsourced, such as "Home arenas", "Affiliate teams", and "Television and radio" and a very good amount of "Players and personnel"
  • Many dead and problematic links
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • Looks OK, but could use a review from someone more experienced with images.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • No, in some places. Excessive details on each season aren't necessary when we're dealing with an article that should cover the team's history. For example, the biggest paragraph in the entire article is currently a very detailed play-by-play of how the team did in the 2012 playoffs. All of that belongs on the article for the team in that season.

I don't believe this article would even pass a good article nomination in its' current state. A lot of work needs to be done here. Gloss 00:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See instructions at WP:FAR; you only raised the concerns on article talk two days ago.[16] Is there an earlier FAR notice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like some of the other listings at FAR/FARC didn't even get a talk page notice, so I wasn't sure how strictly that part is being followed. Forgive me if I jumped the gun. Gloss 02:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any other FAR that did not have a talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The one you nominated (Gas metal arc welding), doesn't look like it had any concerns raised on the talk page since 2011 before you nominated it for FAR. So I was going to jump right to the FAR since this article did have concerns raised about it being an FA with this thread also in 2011: Talk:New Jersey Devils#Recentism, but I added another notice a few days ago since I didn't know how recent the notice had to be. Gloss 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gloss, older notifications are okay - the idea of the talk-page step is to see whether there are people willing to step in and help get the article up to standards without a full review. But the section you point to is not so much concerns about it being FA so much as a suggestion that a new article could be created from this one and brought to FA status. I think we'll put this on hold for a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem at all. Again, my apologies. Gloss 01:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Gloss did let us know at WP:HOCKEY, so there is that. I won't make any promises about fixing it up, but I will try to give the article a read over today or tomorrow to see how much work is required and whether I want to bring it back to FA level at this time. Resolute 15:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. I've just copyedited the lead and the Kansas City/Denver sections, and no, I don't believe the FA status can be saved without a tremendous amount of work. I could copyedit the entire thing, but massive amounts of the article are completely unsourced and I really don't have the inclination to do the kind of research necessary on this article. I would happily support someone else if they were to take that work on, however. This article truly is a relic of another era in Wikipedia's history. Resolute 23:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • From a glance, I'm quite concerned about the amount of unsourced content. In fact, when an article contains multiple completely unsourced sections/subsections, that alone is an automatic fail for GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, but you all are commenting on a FAR page that is not at FAR, because it's on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It won't be on hold forever and I find it unlikely much changes between now and then. If it does change, my only comment has been to note the amount of work required. SNUGGUMS' comment is similar. Resolute 15:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't disagree with the basis of the FAR and thought the article was in a shoddy state when I first learned there was going to be an FAR. I've begun to work on improving it and have finished a couple of the history sections. My schedule here and elsewhere is full, but I'm going to try devoting more time to polishing up the rest of the article in the hopes of being able to pull off an improbable save. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Confident in your ability to restore-- please ping when we should have a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Pedro I of Brazil[edit]

Notified: Lecen, DrKiernan, Astynax (original nominators)

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

A featured article cannot actively mislead its audience, in any way.

If we're going to use historic artworks to show him, we need to use as accurate as possible copies of those artworks, as they, in themselves, become part of the story of the person. File:Unidentfied artist - Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg is by the Google Art Project, who are noted for taking great care in getting colour balances accurate. File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG is a random, low-quality image off a random internet site. lies about its source, and post-hoc mangles the colours.

However, the group who originally nominated it are literally edit warring to keep the bad-quality, inaccurate depiction of the painting in the article, and claiming that the historic painting is a racist depiction that has to be digitally modified to be a better representation of him. " There have been attempts in populist revisionism to adjust portrayals of fair-featured popular leaders to make them look more like the general populations of today." [17]; "He was white, you ignorant racist" [18] - the image is from c. 1835, so roughly contemporaneous with Pedro I, who died in 1834; hard to say if it's posthumous or not.

Wikipedia should not be in the position of actively misrepresenting its subjects. This includes major, important historic documents about them - and a painting is a document. It might be inaccurate. In fact, it's a painting; I'm sure it's inaccurate in many ways. But one can't make up conspiracy theories ("populist revisionism"; etc.) or claim that the reliable source (the Google Art Project) is wrong purely because of said conspiracy theories.

To quote our article on the Google Art Project:

As I said, highly reliable source.

We can't have misrepresentation in a featured article, and that includes changing historical documents. I don't think we need to delist it, but we cannot let the situation stand: Either the image needs to go completely, either the image needs changed to the reliably sourced version, or proof needs to be provided that it's not a reliable source, despite it's very good reputation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't understand anything you just said. Really. You opened a FAR because you didn't like a painting in an article? This painting? --Lecen (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories aside, the purpose of using images in an article is, according to policy "to increase the reader's understanding of the subject." This article is not about a painting, but about a historical figure who reliable sources report was fair-skinned with brown hair (as the other images in the article show). The oversaturated, contrasty image which was introduced made him look like he had black hair with tan skin and garishly colored decorations. Though condition and variations of these official portraits may be at fault, the image proposed makes his dark blue tunic look black and the background a foreboding brownish tone. Official portraits were made by the dozen from the same archetype, and Google's Art Project itself hosts at least 2 knockoffs of this model. When the size is reduced for display in the article, the distortions in hair and saturation are worsened. Some images on Wikipedia are heavily color corrected, some are entirely the original artwork of editors, but the goal is the same: to illustrate the article. As I attempted to explain on the article talk, the proposed image is even more different than how Pedro I is described in the article's text. • Astynax talk 08:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Close without FARC. This dispute is over which of two images should be used as the main image. The two images are in fact identical apart from the resolution (which is high in both cases but slightly higher in the "darker" version) and color balance. The color balance in the "lighter" version was, originally, identical to that in the "darker" version (see previous versions of the file for confirmation) but the yellow tones have since been reduced. It is this reduction in the yellow tones that Adam objects to on the grounds that the subsequent tone, particularly of Pedro's skin, is unverifiable.

In my personal experience, old artworks tend to yellow with age, and so the tones in old artworks are often now not those that were originally painted. I also note the contemporary description of Pedro quoted in the article: 'After "years under a tropical sun, his complexion was still light, his cheeks rosy".' I also note that the reduction of yellow tones has been applied consistently over the entire artwork, and by doing so the tones of the braiding and ribbon look, to my eyes, more natural. They do not look too blue or unnatural to me. Also, it is unlikely that the skin tone of someone descended exclusively from European royalty 200 years ago is any different from the skin tone of someone descended exclusively from European royalty today, and so it is not rational to suppose that Pedro's skin tone would be darker than that of royalty today, or indeed other royalty of the time.

Consequently, on the balance of the written evidence that Pedro had light rather than olive skin, the propensity of older artworks to darken and yellow with age, and the comparison between the skin tone of the manipulated image and that of other comparable people, I do not feel that the digital manipulation of the image (reducing yellow tone) has damaged the artwork or rendered it misleading or significantly altered the image from what was originally intended by the artist. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't just change paintings on a whim! That's basically the opposite of good practice. That's terrible, and, frankly, given the results, whoever modified the image clearly has no idea what they're doing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You say google art project "are noted for taking great care". Now the google file purports to be the copy of this picture that hangs in the Pinacoteca in São Paulo. Look at this painting actually hanging on the wall in the gallery: [19][20][21][22]. Still think the google color balance is more accurate than the other file? I don't. It's no more or less reliable than any other internet source. You claim that the current lead image is a "random, low-quality image off a random internet site" but it is the exact same file as the google file. Look at the google file and the original unmodified other file side by side at the same resolution. They're identical. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
'Your argument is that because uncolourbalanced snapshots look different, and very different from each other, they should be considered more accurate. That's mind-boggingly stupid, and basically shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously, cheap personal cameras don't have any colour fidelity. Take a photograph of a picture you own without flash and compare it to the original image. Though that you think that the other three photographs are the same means that you probably aren't going to see a difference... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No, my argument is not that. Read my argument again. And don't call editors, or their arguments, stupid. DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Expanded. And the argument is completely ignorant, there's no point engaging with and argument that only works from incompetence. I'm sure you have many fields that you're competent in, but you're so far from even beginning to get to competence to judge images if you're making the argument you're making... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Your continued insults and misrepresentation of my opinion just makes your own arguments look weaker. DrKiernan (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, my apologies: I presumed that the editor had actually used the source he said he did, which is the one given in the description, instead of replacing it with a Google Art Project image then mangling that. I was presuming that the source was [23] - the first upload - which would have meant the editor had some competence Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if the painting is a issue I don't see why this is necessary. At worst we would need to remove the painting (Not calling for that) and doing that would not negatively effect the article to a point where it should no longer be featured.-- (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: If the nomination continues, it needs to be listed at WP:FAR (see step 5 of instructions).

Notifying @WP:FAR coordinators: , as I am not sure, that all of them are aware of this nomination yet, as the main page shows no update. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Coord comment: as far as I can tell the issue wrt FA status was raised only 2 days ago (please correct me if I've missed an earlier discussion), so if this FAR is to go forward it would be on hold for at least a few more days as the talk-page step continues. However, if the review concerns solely which image should be used and no other WIAFA problems, I wonder if an RFC might not be a more productive approach than an FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that an RfC on the image is the appropriate course. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but given the claims of racism being thrown out willy-nilly by one of the article's FA nominators, it would need to be a very carefully monitored RFC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note: The nominator for this FAR is running a concurrent request for deletion at Wikimedia for the image being used in the article. Considering that the image is being discussed in at least 2 more appropriate places, further discussion here of an issue that has nothing to do with FA criteria is unwarranted. • Astynax talk 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that this is necessarily relevant to meeting the FA criteria. I get the concern about not altering works of art. However, Google Art also has this image of Queluz National Palace's copy of the painting, which is similar in coloration to the lighter of the two being argued over. You can see a comparison of the two Google Art images here. Either the Queluz copy of the painting is poorly done/very deteriorated, or Google Art has done a terrible job of capturing it—and I think either conclusion is relevant here, as it means either (1) at least one copy of the painting truly is quite light, or (2) Google Art image quality is not beyond reproach. Maralia (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR is not dispute resolution, and the issues raised here are not sufficient for removal of FA status. Close review, and raise issues in appropriate forums, or run an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh[edit]

Notified: WP BIO, WP Women's History, WP England, WP Theatre

Deficiencies (mainly uncited text) noted on talk several weeks ago; no progress. Main contributor hasn't edited for three years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, I am awaiting delivery of one of her biographies (through WP:McFarland), and I have a certain amount of info on Leigh from a recent Laurence Olivier re-write with Tim riley (currently at PR, prior to an FAC visit). If you can hold off pulling the trigger on this one, I should be in a position to fill in any citation gaps and give the article a quick spruce up, bringing her up to 2015 standards. Is that possible? (I have no idea on how long the McFarland process will take: it's a new process, so we're feeling our way into it, so I understand if the delisting comes before the book delivery. – SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Bzuk has also been working on it, and it is looking like a save. FAR is a deliberative process for that reason, and if progress is being made or expected, we can wait ... please keep the page posted on your timing, but it's looking good! See my talk page queries on reliable sources ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Close without FARC: I am satisfied with the progress here, and although there has been a talk kerfuffle about the infobox, I believe that can be resolved through normal discussion and DR. The article is good enough now to avoid demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Close without FARC: Thanks for the work done to improve the article. I've left two comments on talk regarding unclear points in the prose, but these can be dealt with there rather than here. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski[edit]

Notified: WP BIO, WP Cryptography, WP Poland, Nihil novi

A 2006 promotion lacking in citations and needing review; FAC nominator gone since 2011. Talk page notifed Dec 20; no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It would be a shame to lose this, because at a casual glance it doesn't look like it's missing a lot of citations. @Nihil novi: I noted that you have been editing the article and that you asked about citations on the article talk page. Generally, for an article to be FA-quality, all text needs to be cited. There are some uncited statements and paragraphs in this article. How much work do you think it would be, and do you have the requisite knowledge to add citations as needed? --Laser brain (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that most if not all the unsourced text has been added since the article achieved FA status. Much of it appears to be drawn from Polish-language publications of recent years and to be of negligible importance, e.g., that Rejewski's father was a tobacco merchant. One solution would be to just delete such unsourced trivia. Perhaps someone else would like to try his hand? Nihil novi (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: I'm willing to give it a try. If there are any disagreements about removing the information, I'll start a discussion. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC, only to keep process on track, and because although some work has been done, there is still quite a bit of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC. Apart from the uncited text, I would also argue that the prose is formatted too much like a list. Many of the paragraphs are very short -- one or two sentences only. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Looie496, Fnielsen, Iztwoz, Wimpus, WikiProject Anatomy, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Medicine [Nominator A314268 and major contributor Nrets are inactive]
URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted over 9 years ago and has not been reviewed since. In that time it has grown by almost 200%. The article is tagged as needing page number citations and (as noted before) some parts are lacking citations. I shall be going through the article in detail over the next couple of weeks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. Quickly scanning the article I immediately noted the "Happiness" section. Supported by a single original study. There needs to be done something with this. Removed? Personally I would also like to see a critical eye "Functional imaging studies have shown cerebellar activation in relation to language, attention, and mental imagery". Given the methodological problems with fMRI I am personally sceptic, although I am not really into the subject. Interestingly the idea of non-motor function of cerebellum goes further back the human neuroimaging [24] and G. G. Berntsonfnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I had the exact same thought about the happiness section, in fact I almost removed it straight off, but when I checked for references there seems to be other work in the area of emotional function. I'd like to investigate how the topic is treated in reviews. If it is notable, then it ought to be better integrated into the article. DrKiernan (talk