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—Ucucha, Graham Beards, and Ian Rose—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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 {{ArticleHistory}}.

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.



Frederic M. Richards[edit]

Nominator(s): Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets FA criteria and the article and the work of User:Dcrjsr should be recognized. I have never edited the article. As nominator I am willing to participate in addressing issues raised in this review, though I have no scientific background and will not be able to address those matters Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the last 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. Thank you, Earthh (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check - mostly OK, but 2 issues:

  • File:Thirty_Seconds_to_Mars_-_"City_of_Angels"_(Promotional_Single).png - fair-use rationale needs last parameter filled, "n.a." is no valid NFCC-argument (see other single lead images for usable example phrases).
  • File:City_of_Angels_music_video.jpg - fair-use for such a collage doesn't work. Most persons in this collage have their own article and simply showing their portrait photos doesn't significantly increase a reader's understanding. A crucial scene screenshot, widely discussed in reviews, could be shown as "fair-use", or a collage of free images (if available).
  • All other images are CC or valid fair-use, with sufficient source and author information.
  • (Not relevant for this FA) As side note, the song sample is OK here, but has a rather weak FUR in its second article usage. Showing "variety and experimentation" is no valid fair-use reason in an article, which doesn't even mention the song and includes 3 other samples. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Science Stories[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Science Stories was part of two booms in science fiction magazine publishing, in 1939 and again in 1950. It was unusual in that it carried more sexual content than most science fiction magazines of the time, partly because it came from a publishing house that emphasized "sex and sadism" in its magazines. The content would barely raise an eyebrow these days, but "aliens lusting after unclothed Earth women" was enough to bring irate letters from the readers. The article is on the short side for a featured article; my personal guideline is that an article with less than 1000 words prose goes to GAN instead of FAC, and this is a little over that mark. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • Both images have sufficient source and author information.
  • Both images are "PD-US-not renewed", no renewals. GermanJoe (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4 should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed. Dang it, thought I might get a clean bill of health from you this time! This is the closest I've gotten so far. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a Jamaican teenager, Dwayne Jones, who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013. The event attracted press attention both domestically and in a number of foreign countries, bringing about international scrutiny and condemnation of the state of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Having achieved GA status in December 2013, further improvements have been made to this article, and I believe that it is now ready to undergo FAC. I'd particularly recommend it to any editors interested in LGBT issues, crime, Jamaica, and human rights. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check[edit]

  • Other images are properly tagged and under Creative Commons licenses. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

I just glanced at the article and was left confused as to what Jones' biological sex was. It's implied that he was biologically male, but the article doesn't explicitly mention that in the lead or the "Early life" section. In the lead something like "Jones was born biologically male but was gender non-conforming" would be a lot clearer to the reader. I'd like to see something similar in the "Early life" section as well. While gender is not always so clear-cut, sex (biologically male or female) is generally pretty straightforward, and being very clear about the latter would help the reader understand why Jones was killed, I think. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You raise a very interesting point. The problem is that we don't have a source that explicitly states that "Dwayne Jones was biologically male". I assume that he was, but without confirmation would hesitate to state it in the article; it is possible that he was intersex or even biologically female, although I thin it unlikely given the information available to us. It seems more obviously clear that he was of the male gender; his two friends (both of whom were transgender women) referred to him using male pronouns and called him Dwayne, so I think that that is a fairly obvious point, which I hope is reflected in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • AP is an agency or publisher, not a work
  • QCJM is a publisher, not an author. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Freedom Planet[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Setting: suburban US high school, upstate New York or New England, right after eighth period as everyone's leaving to get to their homework, smoke sessions, college applications, and endless parental arguments. Jill McIntyre, a well-meaning, if hard-edged, aspiring video game designer who dresses in all black besides the occasional assertive Hole or L7 T-shirt, packs up when she realizes she's been daydreaming about her own with-it-ness and the classroom is empty - but notices an abandoned notebook. Flipping through it, she sees gorgeous drawings of colorful anthropomorphic animal characters, with no context given, only a cryptic name repeated over and over: "Freedom Planet". But whose are these? she wonders - the front of the notebook holds the answer. Rachel Adelstein? Isn't that the snot-nosed girl who never shuts up about those kids' games and gets beaten up and ridiculed like Curly by Larry and Moe for it? I'll need to have a word with her. Before leaving to the locker whose disemboweled contents a weary Rachel is surely picking up before she can leave to her world of and - if this is a social day, Jill can't remember - the anime or video game club, Jill unzips the main pocket of her bag - yes, the trusty copy of Multimedia Fusion 2 is right there. Perfect. Jill's got an idea, and most uniquely, it doesn't at all involve beating her over the head with the case.

Is this the origin of Freedom Planet? No, not even close. But it'll give you a general sense of what it is and where its appeal might lie. Specifically, it began as a Sonic the Hedgehog fangame. Unlike Sonic: After the Sequel, though, an article I also created and had on the Main Page last month, Freedom Planet did not end as one. Lead developer Stephen "Strife" DiDuro felt this association would hold his game back, so he retooled it into an original, if transparently derivative, product. Is it innately feminist as Jill's fashion might imply? I couldn't say and don't really care, but it's one of a very small population of games to feature three protagonists, all female. The gameplay will feel disturbingly familiar to any Sonic player who never made it to 3D Blast or Adventure or just didn't care to. There are, however, more action elements, afforded by the characters' combat abilities, as well as a reliance on plot and characterization that Sonic Team wouldn't take up until its 3D forays. I get the sense that its ranking as the fifth-highest-reviewed game of all time on Steam involves somewhat of a selection bias, but I'm not complaining one bit. It's the second-most-played game in my library, the first involving sentry guns, sandviches, and funny getups and hats everywhere.

I created this article in early June, let it languish for a while, then quickly scurried it up to GA, making further improvements after it passed and then waiting for a while for Tony Hawk's Underground '​s FAC to close, which would finally happen earlier this morning. Two notes: every image used in the article is free, and because of the title's relative obscurity, there really aren't any more reliable reviews than those listed in the table and, where they didn't give a score, summarized in the prose. (However, if more are released during this FAC, please be sure to tell me.) If passed, this article would earn me my second Four Award, which, while certainly not the be-all-and-end-all of editing, would be nice. Tezero (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

St Helen's, Ashby-de-la-Zouch[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My last ancient building was a Derbyshire castle, so it must be time for a Leicestershire church. This quiet market town church was once a hotbed of Puritanism under the patronage of Henry Hastings. It doesn't face east, the nave is wider than it is long, and it has a finger pillory.

I've tried to avoid technical terms and not go into too much detail of the architecture to keep the length of the page reasonable, but if there are glaring omissions, I'll remedy if I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check[edit]

Thanks for review. Good idea with the plan, I've uploaded a trimed and centred version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nice—looks much better, especially since it's bigger now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

I've personally struggled with sources for articles on local history - all I could find were self-published books by amateur historians who don't cite their sources. For this church one has a choice of four books - but verification is difficult as the books can be tricky to find. The article uses Williams (1980) but the only library listed as having a copy on Worldcat is Pitts Theology Library in Atlanta. Why didn't the British Library keep its copy?

I agree up to a point, and although much of the descriptive stuff is obvious, I've tried to double check where I have doubts. Williamson, for example, gets the name of one of the Victorian glassmakers wrong. If I have doubts about the facts and can't verify (or if they are challenged) I'll remove them. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pevsner et al. (1985) cited but not in sources.
  • Most short cites end with periods but a few don't.
  • I though I'd checked these, I think I've got them all now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Braddick 2008 or 2009?
  • oclc numbers are nice for books without a isbn
  • Scott - published by George Brown in 1907 and White Lion Publishers, 1975. Which is it?
  • Copy is so battered I hadn't spotted it was the later facsimile Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 6 "British Listed Buildings" in spite of its name appears to be a commercial site with adverts. The same information appears to be available from the English Heritage site - currently Ref 20.
  • Starkey, Julia. St Helen's Church... a short tour Ashby-de-la-Zouch:St Helen's Church What sort of publication is this? What makes this reliable?
  • It's the current official church guide, sold in the church. I accept that it may not be totally reliable , and I'll double-check her claims
I've found the leaflet on the church website. The author's first name is given as Julie and not Julia. It is an attractive leaflet but isn't a suitable source for the church history. Aa77zz (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • the core of the present building mainly dates from 1474 - surely it took more than a year to build.
  • "Domesday records that a priest was resident in Ashby," Not sure about this construction - Domesday isn't a person.
  • "An inspection at the end of the eighteenth century commented on the dirty transept walls" - Can an "inspection" comment?
  • "and is aligned at 25° north of east.[12][13]" Reference 12, Thompson (1927–1928), contains a detailed plan with a compass rose indicating that the church is only 10 degrees from an EW alignment.
  • The two refs were each referencing one half of the sentence, it's Starkey that says 25 degrees. In the interests of OR, I took alignments at several points inside and outside the church. None were less than 25, and most were nearer 30. I just copied the arrow direction in Williams without measuring it, but it looks as if his draughtswoman got it bang on with the angle you measured. I've separated the two refs, but given the OR and possible errors of my estimates, I'm inclined to keep both the referenced 25 (near enough) and the depicted angle in my plan. Even if the LAHS plan was correct, it would still be an exceptional deviation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
OK - I've done my own OR - screen capture of google earth and then measure angle in Photoshop. The result is 27.5 (+/- 0.5) degree. Thus Thompson is wrong and 25 degree is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A heretical thought: I think one could say that the church axis is almost 30 degrees from EW without a reference. It is not too dissimilar to saying that Ashby lies 18 miles from Leicester - and is obvious from a cursory glance at a map. Aa77zz (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "the same time as that part of the tower, making it the oldest of its kind in the UK" - Starkey. What sources does Starkey cite?
I've struggled with this. I'm pretty sure she's right, but I'm still looking for a RS source. Similarly, I know what the type is, but struggling to RS that as well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The arch gateway at the western end of the churchyard bears a skull and crossbones, warning of a plague pit nearby in which the victims of the 1645 outbreak were interred." - What are Starkey's sources? How does she know the age and the significance of the skull and crossbones? (How old is the gateway?)
  • "The chancel east window contains arms of Richard I and Edward I which are among the earliest stained glass in existence." This needs a good source. English Heritage don't claim this.
  • "Kirkland of Huddersfield." Organ manufacturers are well documented. There was an organ manufacturer of this name in Wakefield (14 miles away) from around 1875. The firm made a large number of organs - see Kirkland on the National Pipe Organ Register.
  • "It was first repaired in 1824,[26]" Ref 26 is National Pipe Organ Register. I cannot see the 1824 date.
  • "the earliest glass is German, Swiss and Flemish work" Specify roundels in modern windows? English Heritage are more careful with "that are said to have been brought from Farleigh Hungerford (Somerset)"
  • "living" - needs a link?
  • "The new, larger church included a nave with tower and aisles, and chapels adjoining the chancel.[6]" with tower?
  • Interior views - iPhones are not ideal for photographing the interior of churches. I've lightened the shadows (but one can't polish a turd). User:Diliff has taken a number of impressive church interiors but lives in London.
  • File:Sthelenscolor-02final.jpg appears very slightly crooked - the north wall appears to drop to the right. The plan in the Thompson article indicates that the walls should be square. The direction of the North arrow in the sketch is 30 degrees from vertical - rather than 25 degrees mentioned in the text and 10 degrees in the Thompson plan. I also notice that the buttresses mid-way along the walls to the north and south of the tower are denoted as modern in Thompson but as 14-15th century in your plan. Is this a change in Williams 1980?

Aa77zz (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio's comments[edit]

  • See the churches website. It looks like it is officially called "St Helen's Church" or the "Parish Church of St. Helens". I think that "St Helen's Church, AdlZ" should be the name of the page. A number of churches have this name (not abbreviated), see St. Helen's Church. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • See File:St Helens (8062003931).jpg. It has got an aerial or flagpole on the top. This would look like a prominent feature that should be included. Also, I am interested in physics, so I usually look for lightning conductors on tall buildings and this image shows one. Should the lightning conductor be part of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "... and is aligned at 25° north of east.[13]". Is the tower at the west end or the east end? I am finding it difficult to workout which side of the tower is which. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments[edit]

  • I am sorely hoping that, upon reading the article, I find out that the church is home to a brood of rare Pyroclastic Pigeons or something like that. A Jimfbleak nomination without birds? *gasp* (yes, this is humor) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Image comment: If WMUK is willing to fund it, I think Diliff would be willing to work his magic here as well (I mean, check out his work).
  • Standardize: St Helens or St Helen's
  • Link Victorian?
  • Lead feels long, as this article is only 14k characters total
  • deanery of North West Leicestershire, the Diocese of Leicester - link on first mention?
  • It has an entry in the Domesday Book, which suggests that it then had about 100 inhabitants, - year/century?
  • La Zouch - is there an article on the family?
  • Parts of the nave and chancel date from the fourteenth century, - perhaps make it clear that this is parts of the current nave
  • The tower, Hastings Chapel, and some buttresses and windows still remain from the fifteenth century works. - Is "works" adding anything? I think losing it would make the sentence clearer
  • Royalist stronghold - anything to link Royalist to?
  • Royal coat of arms - correct caps?
  • The increasing congregation - would including an adjective (large, for instance) work better?
  • added during this period, along with the removal of the galleries, conversion of a chapel to a vestry and improvements to the Hastings Chapel. - to keep this parallel, I think "added during this period" needs to be changed to something with a noun
  • to combat deathwatch beetle found during rewiring, - beetles? (not beatles, though it's the right period)
  • Holy Trinity, Ashby-de-la-Zouch,The Priory Church of Saint Mary and Saint Hardulph, Breedon on the Hill, St Mary the Virgin, Coleorton, St John's Chapel, Coleorton, All Saints Church, Isley Walton and St Matthew's Church, Worthington. - could use some semi-colons to split up churches and towns
  • for weekly lectures in the church. - on what sorts of topics?
  • to a John G. Shields and his descendants.- What does "a" add?
  • 25 spent preaching and pamphleteering. - missing a word, I dare say
  • Mark James Monk, organist from 1880–1883, fulfilled the same role from 1890 at Truro Cathedral. - is this really worth its own paragraph? Anything more on other organists?
  • both Elizabeths - both named Elizabeth?
  • The chancel east window - the eastern chancel window, the east chancel window? I think chancel goes after east
  • including a fine "The last Supper". - whose opinion?
  • Link Font?
  • The nave is significantly wider than it is long, - any hard numbers?
  • Link Dorset?
  • Duplicate link: Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I Never Liked You[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

An impressionistic cartoon story of Chester Brown's painfully awkward adolescence. A quick read, and one that I reread frequently. the book demonstrate's its creator's mastery of his medium without resorting to pyrotechnics—superficially the reverse of a Maus, Watchmen, or Jimmy Corrigan, which is likely why this quiet masterpiece gets less press. Real comics connoisseurs know that this thing is the real deal, though, and fully the equal of those headline-snatchers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review

William F. Raynolds[edit]

Nominator(s): MONGO 20:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Raynolds was a man of many achievements. A West Point grad and member of the U.S. Topographical Engineers, he was a decorated U.S. Army Colonel upon retirement and temporarily breveted to General for meritorious service during the American Civil War....was the first to climb Pico de Orizaba, the tallest mountain in Mexico, and led the first U. S. Government sponsored expedition into the region that later became the world's first National Park; Yellowstone. Raynolds was a renowned civil engineer who oversaw the construction of many lighthouses... some of which are still in use and are on the National Register of Historic Places. This article is currently rated as a Good Article after being well reviewed by Nikkimaria and copyedited by Bishonen. Tell me what else I can do to get this article to Featured level. Thanks! MONGO 20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "described by Raynolds as "a small band compared to their neighbors, but are famous warriors ..."": Rewrite that, please, so that it makes sense as a sentence.
    Adjusted this but may still alter it for flow MONGO 12:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "A combination of failure to reach the fabled sights of the Yellowstone region as well as the outbreak of the war relegated the Raynold's Expedition to near obscurity, but his map was in high demand and was published in 1864.": I don't know what that means; people must have known that he went there if they knew about the map.
    Reworded that and eliminated some redundant wording. MONGO 16:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Appreciate your input, Dank. Many thanks. MONGO 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


  • In the expedition section, discussion of the Wind River and Bighorn River needs a bit of clairification so that the reader knows they are not different rivers, just different parts of the same river. (I know it still confuses me at times).--Mike Cline (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think I wordsmithed something that works...feel free to check MONGO 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Heading east, the reunited expedition recrossed the Rocky Mountains and traveled via steamboat downstream to Omaha, Nebraska where the expedition members were disbanded in October 1860. Not accurate as once at Three Forks, the expedition was already on the Missouri river and East of the Rockies. Did they travel via the Yellowstone or Missouri east?? Where did they catch the boat--Fort Benton, Bighorn, Fort Union?? --Mike Cline (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Adjusted and added a source, albeit an ancient one from 1906 but likely accurate--MONGO 01:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments: interesting article. I have a few minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • are there any details that can be provided to flesh out the Early life section a little more? For instance, who were his parents? Do we know where he went to school, etc?
    Found further details on his ancestry but I confess it might be hard to adequately reference even though the details are neither surprising nor sensational enough to warrant much indignation due to mediocre referencing. In other words no claim to being descended from royalty or other famous persons is made. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • a widow is mentioned, are there any details about her? When did they marry? What was her name? Did they have any children?
    As above, same detail enhancement but mediocre referencing and I won't dare use findagrave as a reference. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "File:William F. Raynolds.jpg": this might look more visually appealing if it were rotated to face into the article. Is this possible, at all? (note, this is not required by policy, just a suggestion)
    I have seen that as a MOS suggestion before and its a good one...maybe I can download then reupload a reversed image and see what it looks like. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done
  • watch capitalisation "Brevet Second Lieutenant" probably should be "brevet second lieutenant" (same for "Brevet Brigadier General") per MOS:MILTERMS;
    Yes check.svg Done
  • year range format, constructions such as "1859–1860" should be "1859–60" per WP:DATERANGE (except birth-death parentheticals);
    Yes check.svg Done
  • not sure about the comma here: "named Raynolds Pass, (44°42′40″N 111°28′11″W)"...I don't think commas are necessary before brackets;
    Yes check.svg Done
  • not sure about the comma here: "Raynolds stated that the Crow were a, "small band...";
  • this seems a bit repetitious: "Raynold's immediate participation in the American Civil War..." followed closely by "With the outbreak of the American Civil War almost immediately after the conclusion of the expedition..."
    Wordsmithed this so the redundancy is eliminated I hope! Good point. MONGO 17:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "May, 1848" --> "May 1848" per WP:DATESNO;
    Yes check.svg Done
  • same as above for "July, 1861". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done
    Thank you and I will attend to your wise points in the next few days. MONGO 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - There is inconsistent use of the possessive apostrophe for Raynolds. It appears as Raynolds's (acceptable) and Raynold's (not correct), I couldn't find a Raynolds' which would also be acceptable. Just need a correct and consistent use. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I have this taken care of now. MONGO 17:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - A map of the expedition from the Raynolds reports might liven this up. I've uploaded 4 different maps that came out of the expedition for you to chose from if you decide to use them. Raynolds Expedition --Mike Cline (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Good finds Mike and much appreciated. Added one map to the article and a link to the Commons category as well. MONGO 17:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Great_Falls_of_the_Missouri_by_J._D._Hutton.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done

Transportation in South Florida[edit]

Nominator(s): B137 (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article as its coverage has been greatly broadened, beyond the suggestions mentioned in its GAN. Some things are left non uniform becuase I am not sure which format to use, such as with references and proper nomenclature. I would like to note that if meeting FAC means tearing the article apart, I would rather dismiss this and leave it mainly as it is. I objectively wrote it using plentiful references, but also omitted some small tidbits as a local who is familiar with what's actually going on on the ground. For example, the county and Wikipedia suggest that the Metromover has variable headways depending on time of day. I can tell you with certainty this is not true. It is already a hassle enough for the operators to clear the system at night. Even at that time, they do not put them away in the maintenance facility, and there is no side track. They are simply parked, usually at the ends of the outer loops. There are several print sources that could be added to further reading section, which I went only as far as to initiate, as I know this makes an article look better. I did not plan to go for broke as I have been doing the past few days on this article, and quite frankly for some time between mid 2012 and mid 2014 I was embarrassed for even having created it. It was circular logic wherein I just kept going farther because I had gone so far, a recent cold that left me indoors also compelled me to delve back into the project. Frankly, it's incredibly easy to write a decent and broad article, it's just time consuming with the syntax. Sans references I could have written the whole thing in an hour or so, and it still would have been just as true. I can easily address any remaining deficiencies or format issues remaining in the article. B137 (talk) 02:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments—I reviewed, and failed this, for GAN three years ago. Some items from that review have been corrected, but the recent work does not bring this up to FA standards. Looking at just the references, in no particular order as things jumped out while skimming them:

  • At a bare minimum, a citation needs to list five things: any attributed authors, a date, a title, the publication information, and in-source location information.
    • Not all items will have specific authors, but if they are give, the citation should give them.
    • The date or year the source was published, and in some cases we also need the access date for online sources. In some cases, the access date is optional, but if there is no publication date, it is essential.
    • We need the title of the source, be it the article title, the book title, or the individual web page's title.
    • We need enough publisher information to enable a reader to locate and evaluate the source. For newspapers and major online-only news websites, the publication name is sufficient, but for books or unnamed websites, the company that published the source is needed. Not all websites are named. Most corporate or government agency websites are unnamed.
    • As a part of the in-source location information, if it's a print source, we need page numbers, if applicable. For an online source, this is the URL (and potentially the access date for websites that update frequently).
  • There are three different date formats in use. Most of the footnotes use "Month DD, YYYY" formatting, which for a topic related to the United States would be expected. However, footnote 11 has its dates in "DD Month YYYY" format, and footnote 93 is using YYYY-DD-MM formatting. For a Featured Article, the expectation is for the article to look polished and consistent. The publication dates and access dates can be rendered in either the same format, or different formats as long as you don't mix "Month DD, YYYY" publication dates and "DD Month YYYY" access dates, or vice versa. (Personally, I recommend using all "Month DD, YYYY" for everything.)
  • There is also inconsistency in in how authors are handled. Most of the footnotes list people in "Last, First" format, but footnote 81 as both authors in "First Last" order.
  • The references are wildly inconsistent and inaccurate at handling the difference between the name of a publication, and the name of a publisher.
    • A publication, or published work, is normally rendered in italics. This includes things like the names of newspapers, magazines or websites. In the citation templates, this is indicated with |work=, |newspaper=, |website= (which isn't the URL of the website, rather the name) or |journal=, etc.
    • A publisher is a company that publishes those works. This could also be the television station or network that produces a broadcast or publishes a news story online. These are listed in the citation templates using |publisher=.
    • As a related topic, but wire services, if indicated, are usually listed in |agency=.
  • There is inconsistency in how the same published work is being rendered from footnote to footnote. Unless the newspaper changed its name in the last three years, The Miami Herald in footnote 100 and Miami Herald in footnote 102 should be the same and should always be in italics as the name of a newspaper or newspaper's website. Similarly, you have The Huffington Post and Huffington Post.
    • Honestly, if the publication includes "The" in its name, you should include it as well, although some off-wiki style guides say to omit it. In either case, consistency is the key.
  • Titles of articles should not appear in ALL CAPS, period. You may change them to Title Case or Sentence case, but you must change them according to the MOS. While you're doing that, you should also harmonize all of the article titles to a single scheme, picking either Title Case (would seem to be preferred by MOS:CT) or Sentence case. This level of minor change is permissible. In fact, the APA style guide tells its adherents to change to specific capitalization schemes, regardless of how article titles and publication names are capitalized.
  • A standard practice in citations is to list the city of publication for newspapers that don't include the city in their title, which we can do with |location=. The Miami Herald includes the city, so listing it again is redundant, but the SunSentinel (or is it Sun-Sentinel) does not, so it should be included. This rule also applies to television stations, which should have their cities listed as well.
  • On footnote 20, the TV station should be listed as the publisher, and YouTube, if listed at all as a republisher, should be in the |via=. However as another practical matter, I'm skeptical that the uploader of that video has the appropriate permissions. We are not allowed to link to copyright violations, and if so that link should be removed at a minimum.
  • We really should be adding |format=PDF where appropriate. Not all readers can see the PDF icons in all cases, and those icons may actually disappear at some point. (They've already been removed from other language editions of Wikipedia along with icons for Word, Excel, or MP3 files; they're retained here for PDFs as a local change to the server software that could be removed at any time.)
  • On footnote 24, etc, you list "CBS Miami" as the publisher. It would be better to list the TV station's call letters along with the city where the station is located.
  • Footnote 54 is broken; it's missing a second "}" to close the template.
  • Footnote 90 uses "Belle Isle Blog" as the name of an author, instead of listing it as the department of the newspaper.
  • A best practice regarding linking publication names or publisher names is to only link the name in the first footnote that uses it to avoid WP:OVERLINKing.

That handles the biggest things that stand out in a quick skim of the numbered footnotes. However, you have a curious second footnotes section with a single shortened footnote that references a single full citation. Do your readers a favor and:

  1. Convert that single footnote using the other footnote system to use <ref>...</ref>.
  2. Run the full citation within that set of <ref>...</ref> tags. There is no use in shortening the only footnote to that source.

On that note, I will come back another day to evaluate the prose. If things are as jumbled there as I'm seeing in the citations in terms of formatting consistency, I hold very little hope for this article passing FAC in the normal time period. At this time, I'm leaning toward formally opposing promotion for this article. Imzadi 1979  09:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback; I am not taken aback by your opposition at all. I realize that this is not an inherently eloquent topic. It is also so broad as to be possibly be not stable enough, especially with dating. When briefly reviewing the list of GAs and FAs recently, I noticed that Transport in/Transportation in/Rail Transport in – type of articles were basically non existent in either category. As I stated above, I was waiting for feedback here to see which format of reference was most accepted. You went into more depth here on things than you did in the extra comments of the GAN. The reason I did not do a GAN is because basically any editor could pick that up and give me non-collaborative advice on how to format it; here I thought I was more likely to get refined advice. B137 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I am working on these syntactical issues now, with many completed. I added that The Miami Herald requires a subscription; it allows you a number of free articles per month. After that there is a pop up; however, you can still read the article behind it. Furthermore, if you hit stop at the right moment you can prevent the pop-up and freely read, search, and copy text from the article such as the title. I am unifying the refs as per an United States centric article, despite requirements for conversions for non-American readers. I changed the television sources to the call letters and the city, should I also add the affiliate (CBS, NBC, etc.) as the agency, perhaps? B137 (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
One additional inquiry; is it appropriate to supplement the book references in the standard reflist by including said books in the Bibliography section in a more traditional way, without the url of Google Books or whatever site hosts the preview or abstract of them? The Further reading section would remain dedicated to additional reading sources that are not directly referenced in the article, but still may be of interest to the in depth reader. B137 (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Many of these issues are fixed, with some remaining pending further advice. For example, South Florida Business Journal is a published source and as its name suggests it should be considered a journal, therefore using the parameter |journal=_ would be appropriate; however, as with The Miami Herald, some of their work is only available online. Not 100% can be seen in the print editions. Vice versa, not everything published is available online but none of that work is seen here. On another note the herald recently reformatted their site and some links were lost. There may be an archive but I'm not sure. B137 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"United States centric [sic] article"? "conversions for non-American readers"? This is a non-scientific topic clearly related to the United States. It should be written in American English and use American-style dates. It should also list customary measurement values first with metric given as a conversion. Otherwise, the content would be no different than you if were writing about a topic in Europe using British English, European-style dates and giving the metric values first.
I may not quite understand your Google Books question. If I'm reading you correctly, you don't need to duplicate the book like that. If you're only citing a book once, just put the whole citation using {{cite book}} into the footnote with the full information (authors, year, title, publication location, publisher, page number, and ISBN or OCLC if possible) and if you also read it online, include a good URL and probably |via=Google Books.
The "issue" with the South Florida Business Journal isn't an issue. In {{cite news}}, |work= |newspaper= and |journal= are aliases for each other; it doesn't matter which parameter name you use because they are functionally the same. In fact, if you set up more than one of them, I believe the value for |work= will override the others. Use |work=South Florida Business Journal or |journal=South Florida Business Journal and it won't matter, the name of the published work will still appear in italics in the proper location. (It also doesn't matter if you're reading it in print or online, it's the name of a print publication and its sister online website.)
If links have gone dead because The Miami Herald has reformatted their website, and you were relying on online-only articles, then you'll need to find links to those sources that still work or replacement sources. When dealing with news articles from The Mining Journal, I check to make sure that their online versions match a print edition (they don't publish stuff online-only), and then I use both the URL and the page number out of the print edition. I'll even go so far as to pre-emptively archive all online sources through like I did with County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan). If any of those sources go offline in the future, someone (or a bot) can remove |deadurl=no to point readers to the archived copy.
Finally, my opposition has nothing to do with the topic, or any perceived lack of eloquence with it. Rather, FAs are expected to be "Wikipedia's finest work", and this is far from it in the references section. I have not only reviewed the formatting and found it quite wanting. If the prose is similarly wanting, then I will oppose promotion and suggest a thorough copy edit by a third party to get this article up to the level expected of a FA. We expect FAs to have a professional appearance, from the quality of the prose to the polish of the formatting. That is what matters, not the specific topic of the article Imzadi 1979  00:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Nearly all if not all of the print sources including books that would be of interest to this article can be found at the Richter Library at the University of Miami; I believe they have herald archives, though I have not looked at any them yet. Easier yet but with a cost the herald website has an online archive; Transit expose I had thought lost where articles from 1982 to present can be found. This would not include the early planning of Metrorail or the highway system, let alone anything on the early 19th century systems, most of which can be found in other sources anyway, such as the MUATS studies (at UM), this would cover all of the linked Miami Herald entries found in the article thus far.
To get to the long and short, have you read the article? B137 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Oppose—I haven't fully re-read the article since the GAN in 2011. The sourcing and its formatting though gives me pause. If the sourcing isn't good, it doesn't matter how good the writing is. If you have re-source the article, that could mean extensive revision of the content to match up the new sources. As it is, there are entire uncited paragraphs present in the article. The recent changes to citation formatting have corrected some errors and introduced several more. (Locations for TV stations were inserted into |publisher= instead of |location=, and publishers are appearing in italics where they weren't before or have been incorrectly shifted into |via=, as just a few examples.) I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination, take this to WP:PR and engage with other editors willing to assist in the detailed copy editing and polishing necessary to consider a FA nomination in the future. Imzadi 1979  03:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, a few links went bad, and I suggested two ways to get the information back; who said anything about resourcing the entire article? While I agree that The Herald does not offer the best journalism in the world, they are quite reliable in this subject. Is "Hunts' Guide to Michigan's Upper Peninsula" a more reliable source? Not trying to make this personal, but I feel I'm already late to that game. Regardless of the print archive, the online archive is little more than a paywall, and project guidelines do not mandate that all sources be freely available. Also, largely fixed are the minor syntactical issue of TV market areas, publishers, etc. I realize that it might be all but impossible to get this subject up to FA standards because so much of it is naturally just raw information that allows little creative license and inspiring prose, but with all due respect I feel that after your latest entry this has just devolved into rhetoric.
B137 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Please re-read what I said. I've never questioned The Miami Herald, nor would I since they are presumably a/the paper of record for the metro area. Nor were any of my comments related to paywall vs. print archive or any of that. I just said that there are issues regarding the sourcing, and that has to be sorted out before we can move on to the prose because changes in sources usually mean changes in prose. Also, the presence of Talk:Transportation in South Florida#To do is also concerning to me. If there are topic areas that you know are missing, this article should not be at FAC. It's one thing if a reviewer points on a deficiency in comprehensiveness, but if you know there are these deficiencies, you're wasting reviewer time on an incomplete article. In short, you have structural issues to resolve before we can deal with polishing the prose. I still suggest withdrawing to work on these issues. Imzadi 1979  23:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding professionally despite my signs of taking offense. Since you are apparently not discrediting the herald, and you are okay with archives, what references again need to be changed? What issues are there remaining with the sources bar syntax, which I have fixed as far as you have guided me. The to-do list was a place for me to organized some new ideas, the only parts that have not been struck out I have discredited. I think I once briefly heard of fraud taking place by parking an unwanted car on the railroad tracks, and that this happened to Tri-Rail, but I could not find that information; it may have been as far out as a ranting comment, and the idea itself is absurd. B137 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I have browsed several print sources on the topic, many old studies of highway and transportation plans and can say that there is not too much more that is worth adding to the article, unless the history section was going to be expanded as its own awkwardly titled Miami Transportation history (would be more local) or similar. It could be debated for weeks what minor details could be added or taken away, such as the controversial red light cameras at large intersections which seem to have been deactivated. If this stagnates for more than a few more days longer, I will withdraw it as an unequivocal oppose from the community if it has not already failed at that point. B137 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2014 (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)

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)

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)

Caldas da Rainha[edit]

Nominator(s): Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a city in Portugal. It was promoted to Good Article less than a month ago. A request for Peer Review received zero feedback. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

  • As GA reviewer, I'm not sure I'm allowed to do this, but I can't find anywhere that says I can't so... Support. The article is well-written, well-sourced, neutral, stable, has relevant images, a good lead etc. I gave it a pretty thorough review at GA and I can't see any problems with the article. — Bilorv (Talk)(Contribs) 10:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It is perfectly OK for an article's GA reviewer to support its promotion to FA, provided that judgement is made on the basis of meeting the featured article criteria, which are rather tougher than those for GA. I haven't read through the article, but being a fan of most things Portuguese, I've skimmed through and found a few issues:

  • The lead is not, at the moment, an overview of the whole article, as required by WP:LEAD. At present it reads more as a collection of general facts about the city, without any real order or structure.
  • "Place" articles normally have substantial "climate" sections, including temperature and rainfall information – see, for example, Belgrade, Minneapolis, Seville etc. This information seems to be absent from this article.
  • Although most of the article is well referenced, the penultimate paragraph of the Arts and culture section has no citations at all. There are paragraphs elsewhere in the article that end with uncited statements – see, for example, "Attractions" and "Sports" sections
  • The wording that opens the Attractions section: "Attractions not mentioning a civil parish are found in Nossa Senhora do Pópulo, the eastern half of city proper, containing the historical centre" is not clear as to purpose or meaning.
  • What criteria were used to decide who should be listed as the "notable people"? It is not always clear what their connection with the town was. Also note: "bares his name" → "bears his name".
  • My skim-reading gave me the impression that there was rather a lot of small detail. Example: "The ceramics are available for purchase at stands in the daily market at Praça da República (Praça da Fruta) and shops in the vicinity. They are available in stores outside Portugal, including a number of up-market housewares stores." These reads more like promotional material than a summary encyclopedia article. There may well be other similar instances.

I see that the promotion to GA happened on 21 October, since when there has been virtually no editing activity on the article. In other words, there has been no specific preparation for this FAC. I don't honestly think the article is ready at present (preparing the Climate details is a fairly big job on its own). Your best bet in my view would be to withdraw and resubmit, after the necessary work has been done, and after the completed article has been reviewed against the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will work on improving the article based on your suggestions. I have added a few comments below yours.—Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead is not...
    • The lead is organized as follows: 1) intro, notability, claim to fame; 2) history and origin of name, 3) culture, education, and sports; 4) population, geography, and transportation. Question, do you prefer the lead before or after this change: [1]?
    • Done I have reworked the intro, making it more targeted and concise, and undoing some of the additions that brought it to Good Article status. Is this better?
  • "Place" articles normally have substantial "climate" sections...
    • Done I do not believe that this is a requirement, nor do I know of a source for this information. I do agree that there's an air of incompleteness without the info. I'll dig to see what I can find.
  • Although most of the article is well referenced...
    • I will search for and add references. (Or excise info. for which refs. cannot be found.)
    • Done Unreferenced paragraphs no longer exist.
  • The wording that opens the Attractions section...
    • Done I reworded for clarity.
  • What criteria were used...
    • Answered and Done The criteria are notable individuals who were born in, lived in, or worked in Caldas who have Wikipedia articles. Three were born in Caldas (Alvorninha being a civil parish of the municipality, as mentioned earlier in the article), and one built his famous ceramics factory in Caldas. Thank you for catching the typo.
  • My skim-reading gave me the impression...
    • The sentences are not intended to be promotional. Rather, they are intended to demonstrate the global popularity of ceramics from Caldas. Question: would it be preferable to mention stores selling the ceramics in text or just as refs.?
    • Done I have rewritten the entire ceramics paragraph, eliminating this concern.

I see that the promotion to GA happened on 21 October...

@Brianboulton: Thank you for your feedback. Your suggestions have been very helpful in improving the article. I believe that I have addressed your concerns. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
These improvements are welcome. One further point you might address is to clarify what connection your notables had with the town, for example whether they were born there, or settled there later, etc. I don't know whether I will find further review time for the article, but I wish you well with it. Brianboulton (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the well wishes. For each of the notable people, the dates and places of birth and death are given in parentheses directly after their name. For the one individual not born in the municipality, the text mentions the ceramics factory that he founded in Caldas. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Pt-cld1.png: what is the copyright status of the original design? Same with File:CLD.png
  • File:Leonor_de_Viseu_-_José_Malhoa.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
  • File:Caldas_da_Rainha_Pottery.jpg: what is the copyright status of the pottery itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you for taking the time to review and help me improve. —Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Schliengen[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Battle of Schliengen, in October 1796, between elements of the French Republican Army and the Habsburg and royalist French armies. It has been through reviews in the MIL Hist wikiproject and recently passed A-class. I'd appreciate constructive criticism. It is at least comparable with other articles of similar type that I have brought to FA review.. auntieruth (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "the Prince Condé", "the Condé": There's no requirement for consistency in titles within Wikipedia, but I think it would help. I see from a link below that this is Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé (it would be better to move the link to first occurrence); I don't see "the Prince Condé" in that article, looking quickly. There are lots of ways to write titles, and I don't know a lot about the subject, but many of them sound jargony to a wide readership.
  • fixed
  • "on Freiburg": "assigned to Freiburg" or "at Freiburg" might be a little clearer.
  • "))": MOS frowns on this.
  • Yes, I do too. However, the template assigns a parens. What do I do?
    • The convert template used to handle this, but I don't see it in the list of parameters now. Do it without the convert template, using "or" instead of parens. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "His position on the heights gave him the advantage in any approach; his troops would be firing downhill on the Habsburg troops, which would have to not only look up into the fire but also would have to march uphill. The French position, in the chain of abrupt and woody heights, seemed nearly impregnable.": There's overlap between this and the next paragraph: "... Moreau had chosen an almost unassailable position, especially for his center. Any Habsburg force would have to cross the Kandern; in most cases, it would have to advance uphill into withering fire."
  • fixed
  • fixed in both instances.
  • "Feldberg, his column moved with the corps": ?
  • fixed
  • thanks for your comments, Dank. I think I've addressed these. Let me know if I missed something, or you think of something else. auntieruth (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks good, thanks (but I haven't checked the new material). - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh wait ... two potential problems with "Neither the Condé’s troops on Freiburg". - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
*I don't see it.....auntieruth (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check[edit]

  • swapped it and duc d'enghien for files that I can verify source info. No sure what to do about the portrait of charles. Perhaps I should eliminate this section. I have other images of the battle or battle field. auntieruth (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Is this the same Charles? Also, it would be really nice of the two new images could be cropped—they look awful the way they are. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
      • yes it is the same charles. I'm not sure it's the same picture, though. the images have the copyright information on them. am I permitted to crop that off? auntieruth (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • okay, found one of Charles from the centenary album. That has proper notation on it. YAY! Swapped it, and they all look better. I cropped the others, too. Hope it' allowed to do that. auntieruth (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Had to tweak the licence, but everything looks fine now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The other files are fine—either Creative Commons or Public Domain & properly tagged. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Longer quotes (more than 40 words) should be blockquoted
fixed, although I think it makes the spacing awkward.
  • Why do some resources have full citations in both Citations and Sources, but others have only one?
I think these are fixed now.
  • Databook or Data Book for Smith?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
some of the publishing locations are self evident, but now they are included. In other case, there was no publishing location, esp on the old books.
  • Why do some short cites include title while others don't?
  • Kepner or Keppner?
  • Some general inconsistencies in how citations are punctuated. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the American Secretary of State, Senator, First Lady, and once and possibly future presidential candidate. It's been GA for a long time, it had a couple of runs at FA a number of years ago, and has been kept in an FAC-ready state ever since then. Now I'd like to try for FA again. I think it meets all the criteria and it's been very stable in terms of content. I thank in advance any reviewers for their comments. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop.jpg: source link is dead
Now modified to the current State Department source.
  • File:Hrcraad.jpg: do we have an approximate date for this image?
Did some digging, found the date and circumstances, updated the image description accordingly and also updated the caption in the article under review to give the date and a better description of the event.
  • File:Hillary_Rodham_Clinton.jpg: source link is dead
Now modified to an archived link.
  • File:2008_Democratic_Primaries_Popular_Vote.png: is there any merit to the complaint of the IP? If not, it should be removed from the image description
"Primaries" is used by people in two senses, one to cover the whole nomination campaign, which includes caucuses, and the other to mean the specific kind of nomination contest known as a primary. I've removed the IP's addition but have modified the image description text to discuss that caucuses are included. There is no need to modify the article under review because the image caption already mentions caucuses and the article text already indicates that Obama did much better than Clinton in them.
  • File:2009_0121_clinton_290_1.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Now modified to an archive link.
Thanks very much for reviewing these and pointing out where they needed fixes or improvements. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Good Girl Gone Bad[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) & — Status (talk · contribs) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... the third studio album by Rihanna, a game changer for her and her music career. During this era, Rihanna changed her style, became more liberating and lost the good girl image, as the title suggests. As the album is third, this is the third time we nominate this article for FA. Before I nominate it I went through it, not spotting any major issues with the prose or the references, and I think it satisfied the criteria pretty well. I would left the rest to the users who comment. — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Review by Retrohead[edit]

  • I believe worked with various producers on the album sounds more natural.
  • It should be mentioned that 7 million copies were sold worldwide.
  • Technically speaking, an album can not produce singles, it can generate them.
  • I agree produced is not the best word, however, what about spawned?
  • Why don't you write the producers with their stage names: Tricky Stewart instead of Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, L.A. Reid instead of Antonio "L.A." Reid, and so.
  • When I click on "tour", I expect the link to lead to concert tour. Why don't you write the full name of Timberlake's tour or maybe delink the word?
  • I think you've misinterpreted the ref describing "Umbrella". The Guardian called it an "improbable R&B summer smash" (not rock)! It further said it reminded the author of a "rock power ballad", but that's not the same as being a rock power ballad.
  • Regarding the live performances, isn't there some choreography when the songs are played onstage? I haven't watched Rihanna's concerts, but there certainly are dancers, screens, or specific outfit when she performs.
  • Since it was a 2007 tour, there are not much sources describing it the tour. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The commercial performance, as well as the charts and tables are professionally done, perhaps the strongest side of the article, so I have no complaints on that.
  • Here are a few spotchecks on the references:
    • ref 2—Vibe saying A Girl Like Me is a pop album→verified
    • ref 3—dancehall and R&B influences on the sophomore album according to Rolling Stone→verified
    • ref 8—Rihanna received singing lessons from Ne Yo→verified
    • ref 15—"Umbrella" previously offered to Mary J. Blige→verified
    • ref 22—no Caribbean influences on this record per Allmusic→verified
    • ref 30—Metro Weekly compared "Rehab" to "Cry Me a River"→verified
    • ref 44—highlights are the three Timbaland tracks according to The Village Voice journalist→verified
    • ref 87—canceled concert in Malaysia because of costumes→verified
    • refs 91–100—these are critics quotations, so I assume they are correct.
    • ref 105—2.8 million copies sold in the US→not verified; the link is good, but the first part of the article is missing
    • ref 110—1.85 million copies sold in Britain→verified
    • ref 117—7 million copies sold globally→verified
    • ref 121—Rolling Stone ranks "Umbrella" at 412→verified
    • ref 125—not verified→link leads to unspecified entry; if you're using Chart Watch, you can credit the author, Paul Grein.
    • ref 130—not verified→best selling dance/electronic album, per the article's title
    • ref 131—the remix album 49,000 copies sold→verified, but you may add by July 2010, to be more specific
  • You may want to check the external links in the toolbox, it appears that several are dead
  • @Retrohead: I fixed/removed/added all the dead links :). I believe everything is good now. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from WikiRedactor
  • Done, repaired them. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I would title the picture set "Major writers and producers on Good Girl Gone Bad", since Tricky Stewart worked on two tracks, Ne-Yo worked on three, and Justin Timberlake worked on only one. I feel that the individual captions alone suffice because they give more specific details about their respective collaborations. The sentences for Tricky Stewart and Ne-Yo also need periods at the end of them because they are complete sentences.
  • In regards to the Justin Timberlake caption, I feel like "and learned much from the sessions" is too open-ended and unclear. I would recommend just dropping this part of the sentence and leaving it at how much Rihanna enjoyed working with him.
  • In "Composition", you could move the first sentence into the first full paragraph, so we don't have a little stub of a paragraph hanging out on its own in the beginning.
  • How about you chunk the two audio samples into a single box so it looks a little bit less cluttered?
  • In the "Singles" section, it would be helpful to either a) find a better picture of Bey and Jay where both of their faces are more clearly visible, or if that's not possible, b) make the existing image a bit larger.
  • Since I couldn't find a better pic of them too, I decided that the Jay Z part was more notable regarding "Umbrella" ofc, and added just a picture of him. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Since it is a little short on its own, I feel like "Accolades and legacy" could be merged into a couple of other sections. The first paragraph would fit well in "Critical response", and the second paragraph would flow nicely in the "Commercial performance" section.
  • "Re-issue and remix album" would fit well as the third subheading beneath "Marketing and release", since both discs are undoubtedly promotional efforts to boost the performance of the original record.
  • Any particular reason why "Deluxe Edition Featuring Dance Remixes" is in capitalized in the track listing?
  • The release history table has a chunk of missing record labels for some countries.
  • Not anymore ;). — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful to link music/digital download because you link CD and LP in the table.
  • What is the difference between the deluxe and limited editions? There are a variety of deluxe editions mentioned in the track listing so that for me isn't an issue, but I don't see anything about a specific limited edition.
  • That's just going according to what the source says the CD is. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You might be interested in moving references into a separate column at the end of the table, although this is purely a matter of personal preference.
  • With all due respect, I prefer them like this :). — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiRedactor (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

Nominator(s): BollyJeff | talk 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the entire world. Since it reached GA in August, I have further improved it significantly, and had it copy-edited by the GOCE. I am confident that it is now FA quality. Khan is turning fifty in about a year, and I would like to see this as TFA at that time. Please enjoy reading about this highly admired actor. Thanks, BollyJeff | talk 02:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments I did not read the article properly during peer review. I am giving some comments here as I read it:

  • the very first sentence, "... is an Indian actor, producer, television personality and philanthropist". Philanthropist is not a profession, at least not his profession. I think that word should be deleted. Other opinions are welcome.
  • IMO, you should add "film" before "actor", as he is primarily a film actor (as opposed to theater actor). What is the usual practice for articles on film actors?
  • " His eighth Filmfare Best Actor Award put him in a tie for the most in that category" I feel not significant enough to be in the lead.
  • "Khan later earned wide critical acclaim for his portrayal". IMO, remove the word "wide". Just "critical claim" conveys pretty much the same meaning.
  • "the family was often living in near poverty in a rented apartment" Is that what the source say? they were in poverty? I mean , living in rented apartment hardly establishes poverty in Delhi. His schooling in St Columbus also apparently goes against being poor. I am pretty sure his father was not below the poverty line (if there was one such thing at that time).
The source says "hovered at the edge of genteel poverty" which is a bit of an oxymoron. How to translate that, middle class?
Yes, I think middle class is appropriate.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The death of Khan's parents at an early age affected him greatly. He described these events as a motivator for his own work ethic" The first sentence sounds rather melodramatic/not having any worth. Can be removed I guess. Now, how come deaths of parents motivates work ethic? the work ethic/working style/lectures of a parent can influence work-ethic, but death?
The source says "was very attached to his parents as a child and describes their early deaths as a turning point in his life and as his biggest motivation for hard work." I just report what the sources say; I am not making this up.
Yeah, but you have to weigh the weight of each source! a photogallery in IndiaTimes is a pretty poor source in general. Plus, we don't even need this. IMO, not worth the space in this pretty big article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. Done.
  • "a Punjabi Hindu" needs wikilink(s).
  • "She never fully recovered from the shock of her parent's deaths" That sounds un-medical. The shock/grief from family member's death are normal events and last for weeks-months. Non-recovery from such grief is completely abnormal, and suggests underlying psychiatric disorder (depression, personality disorder, or whatever). Any clues on that? Otherwise, this sentence reads like emotional Bollywood movie, honestly, and can be removed.
I am sure that you are correct about an underlying psychiatric disorder, but I have not yet found sources that dare to say it in that way, so again I lightly paraphrased what was written. I will look for a source with more direct language.
Or even can remove the " never fully recovered from the shock" part and just say that she lives with SRK family.
I added some more direct language from another source.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, all of the above has been resolved. BollyJeff | talk 19:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Umeed, Wagle Ki Duniya, and that English TV film needs years of release.
  • "Khan had travelled between Delhi and Mumbai during this period, and was not interested in film acting" Okay, this needs some background info for those who do not know that those serials were made in Mumbai, and that is why he needed to travel between his residence in Delhi and workplace in Mumbai. Otherwise, for those who do not know, the inclusion of this sentence in the biography does not make any sense. Or, you can entirely remove this sentence. The very next sentence discusses his permanent move to Mumbai anyway.
  • " Also released in 1992 were Chamatkar, and Khan's first films as the male lead, Dil Aashna Hai" But Chamatkar released before Dil Aashna Hai, and Khan was the male lead in Chamatkar.
  • " The Encyclopedia of Hindi Cinema said "he defied the image of the conventional hero in both these films..." In this particular use, the year of the publication of the Encyclopedia is needed. The encyclopedia said this in 2003, ten years afterwards, which helps establish the historical significance of the comment
  • " In a retrospective review, Sukanya Verma called it Khan's best performance" Needs year for the review.
  • "Khan's performance as a young NRI who falls" NRI needs full term.
  • Can the description of Dil Se be slightly reduced? It occupies a large number of words, compared to other films of similar significance of the same time (say, Dil To Pagal hai)
  • "Ironically, Khan became a romantic icon without ever actually kissing any of his co-stars" The word "Ironically" appears editorialized for an encyclopedia. You can use quotations; otherwise, this needs rephrasing.
  • "starring the handsome debutante actor..." This spelling of debutante something else.
  • "Khan's next release was Mansoor Khan's action drama Josh" Since it is a new paragraph, it's better to include the year in this sentence.
  • "The film was screened at the Venice Film Festival and the 2001 Toronto International Film Festival to a positive response, but it performed poorly in Indian box offices, and losses continued to mount for the production company, forcing him to close, a sub-company that he had started along with Dreamz Unlimited" A long, convoluted sentence. Please consider splitting.
  • 10 Filmfare Awards (including 'Best Scene'): Best scene is a category? Even if it is, it does not need to be mentioned.
  • "Because of Khan's spinal injury from 2001, he was in acute pain while shooting" The term acute for medical illness is used to denote time/duration, and acute means of short duration (see Pain#Duration). This needs to be changed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

All of the above has been resolved. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 17:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third album, widely considered the best album the heavy metal genre has to offer. I followed a similar writing pattern to ...And Justice for All, featuring sections about the recording, music & lyrics, etc. I believe the sentences are concisely structured, without much unnecessary statements and closely follow the topic.--Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose on comprehensiveness issues. I'm sorry to do this to you Vic, but there are enough of these that I'd suggest withdrawing and bringing back to FAC after they're dealt with:
    • This is one of the key albums in early thrash history, but we're given no context as to where it fits in—it needs a brief band history, a brief history of thrash (where it came from and how it had developed by 1986), and most shocking of all, no mention of 1986 as the magic year that thrash came into its own—the year of Reign in Blood and Peace Sells... but Who's Buying?. "1986" is one of the key memes in thrash mythology—check out how it's handled in both the Reign and Peace articles.
    • No information on equipment used—what brand of guitars were they playing? This obviously isn't a RS, but it shows the info's out there. Here's a tiny bit lifted from a 1992 issue of Guitar Player. Info here from Rasmussen himself, unfortunately I don't think it'd be accepted as a RS. This appears to be a RS. Probably the best sources would be old guitar magazines. I'd try asking on the talk pages of the rock and metal WikiProjects for people who might have this stuff.
    • The musical analysis is extremely thin: nothing about the odd time signatures or the acoustic intro to "Battery", etc. There's lots out there—I'd be surprised if there wasn't enough to give each song a paragraph at least.
    • Sources that should be mined:
    • There's plenty of good stuff to mine even from the sources you've already used—for instance, from Popoff's Metallica: The Complete Illustrated History there's this: "...the record received no airplay. None. In fact, it received no mainstream promotion of any kind. It sold a half-million copies by word of mouth and by the band busting their asses on the road. In fact, the music industry embraced Metallica because the sheer number of units the band shifted without their help meant they had to." This kind of thing is just to significant to ignore. Also stuff like alcohol and Alcoholica.
    • Ulrich gave a story at Sabbath's induction into the R&R HAll of Fame about playing on the Ozzy tour, and Ozzy was pissed off because he thought Metallica was trying to "take the piss" out of Sabbath with their music. I don't see even a mention of Sabbath in the article.
  • No mention of Diamond Head, Venom, Thin Lizzy, NWOBHM, Misfits?
  • Sorry again. The article's fine for GA, but it's still much too far away from FA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read your comments at the unofficial peer review. I couldn't find a source about the comparison of the title track with Sabbath's "War Pigs", which seems limited to forum discussions. Couldn't find a thing about the Ninja Turtles either, because I only have the CD. I'll take a look at the links you've offered and see where can I expand the prose. I'm afraid that I can not extract much from the books above, because I don't own a printed copy, and Google Books only shows scarce previews. Thanks for the ideas on what needs to be improved by the way.--Retrohead (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I can expand the background of the band, but mentioning Reign in Blood and Peace Sells there won't fit because they were released afterwards. I assume they would be more adequate in the commercial performance? Speaking about the Popoff quote, isn't the same information already mentioned→"Despite virtually no radio airplay and no music videos, the album sold more than 500,000 copies in its first year"?
Sorry, I missed that "500,000 copies in its first year" thing. As for Reign in Blood and Peace Sells, I imagine there should be something like a "Legacy" section discussing its place in music history---its influence, its relation to other recordings, the direction the band followed after its release, etc. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Misfits link–the book is discussing The $5.98 E.P.: Garage Days Re-Revisited and the fifth track there, but doesn't mention this record. I can do a song-by-song analysis, which I agree, it should and will be expanded. The only thing you misunderstood me was using the books above. Is there something significant there that isn't featured in the books available on Google Books? Music analysis is accessible, also the band's experience with Ozzy on tour.
    • If there are entire books out there on the band that simply haven't been consulted, then it's hard to believe the article is really comprehensive: that's WP:WIAFA 1b and 1c. If the books were consulted and nothing interesting were found, then it's not an issue. Again, you can get away with that at GA, but not FA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Recording equipment–is this indispensable? I've passed six or seven biographies, but none of them seem to give any weight on what guitars were used. Is it obligatory for featured albums to have detailed description on the equipment? And lastly, can you do daily check to see if the a added sentences are properly structured?--Retrohead (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
If there's no information on equipment, then it obviously can't be included, but I think it's unlikely---guitar magazines can be pretty obsessive with these details. Master of Puppets is a prominent recording noted for the technicality of its music---it's highly unlikely these details can't be found. There's no reason you should be expected have access to all the appropriate sources yourself---ask around and people can help you. Somebody out there must have access to a stash of old guitar magazines. At the very least we should have the players' main guitars and amps, and hopefully basic info on their touring setup. I've put in a request at a few WikiProjects. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how much media attention Metallica received back in the day, but my pick would be 1986 issues of Total Guitar or Guitar Player. I've been buying these stuff and they deal pretty much with guitar tabs and gear, so they might be the thing we need. As for the suggested books, I'm not sure if a book by Chris Crocker is a wise choice. The most interesting information in Halfin's photobook was Hetfield performing on a guitar with a sticker "Kill Bon Jovi" during 1985 Monsters of Rock, but I think that would be considered trivia.--Retrohead (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure the guitar magazines would have given much detailed attention to Metallica in 1986, but I hadn't stated reading guitar magazines then yet. There was definitely a pile of stuff in the nineties after the black album hit, including retrospectives and all-Metallica specials. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've begun expanding the music description. Is it done in the manner you expected ("The Thing That Should Not Be" or "Damage, Inc." for example)? I've got yet to fill half of the tracks, but I think you required concise and comprehensive sentences.
    • You definitely want "concise and comprehensive sentences", but you could certainly go into more detail with the songs. "Master of Puppets" and "Sanitarium" in particular have interesting song structures and dynamics that should be covered. Also, is the middle section to "Master of Puppets" really "melodic"? It drops into a clean, arpeggiated riff with a melodic solo over it, and then gradually adds in crunch until it becomes Sabbath-heavy with the "Master, Master, where's the dreams that I've been after"---that's definitely part of the "middle section", and is hardly what you'd call "melodic", and I'm not sure the arpeggiated riff which is the key part of that section is what you'd technically call "melodic" either. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the background done properly? I've tried to put the thrash origins and the band's background into the same context, in order to stay on the topic.
    • It's much better, but I think you should throw in a bit about the emerging thrash scene as well, to provide context for why this album would be considered so important. The bits about Metallica could use a few more details: foudning year of the band, release year for Kill 'Em All, etc. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Are Ozzy's anecdote and the "Alcoholica" stuff well explained? These are not much represented in the books, but I tried to extract the most important aspect.
    • The Ozzy bit's good. Weren't there "Alcoholica" t-shirts at this time? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Alright, added the t-shirts. Guess we're done with this note.--Retrohead (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding bands such as Diamond Head, Venom, Misfits, I assume you mentioned them as part of Metallica's influences or thrash metal predecessors. I think they are more appropriate in the thrash metal article. They are given no value in encyclopedias that elaborate on this album, nor in the Reign in Blood and Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? articles, which are FA and GA respectively.--Retrohead (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You could through the influences into the "Background" section. I'm surprised at how short and thin on details the Reign in Blood article is---there isn't even any discussion about what the music sounds like! we're told "the song 'Angel of Death' 'smokes the asses of any band playing fast and/or heavy today'" without being told what it sounds like! You should aim for a higher standard than that. You have sources---use them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (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 second nomination; the first one was closed due to a lack of responses/feedback. The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from TheQ Editor[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I did a quick look through and this is what I found. More may come: ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 19:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • There should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement.
    The article uses the "Convert" template so nothing can be done about this.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Dom497: In the article, there is "105 tons" and "519 tons" that doesn't have a non-breaking space and doesn't use the Convert template.
    @TheQ Editor: Sorry that it took so long to reply. I have added conversions for those units.--Dom497 (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Could use a little more images. There's some images on commons. See this link.
    None of those pictures are any good (but I'll put in one). There used to be two really good ones that I got permission to use but the OTRS person decided that I was lying (even when I had proof).--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The infobox states that the G-force is 3.5, but the article doesn't say anything about it.
    Yes it does: "After the pre-brake the gondola enters the main magnetic-brake run, where riders experience approximately 3.5 Gs as the gondola slows." --Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The height restriction needs a citation too
    I cannot do this as it will create an error in the infobox. Instead, it is referenced in the "Ride experience" section.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • wikilink Gondola
    There isn't really an appropriate article I could find to link to.--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
@TheQ Editor: I have addressed your comments. Thanks for reviewing!--Dom497 (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

FIFA Club World Cup[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawaiifive0 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the most important club competition internationally. The quality of the article was an inspiration to start updating football articles in relation to Costa Rica's and I believe it is long overdue for a FA status. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - Have the article's main editors been contacted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: To be fair to the nominator, of the three editors ahead of him in the article's edit count, two are permanently blocked and the other hasn't edited this article for five years – or Wikipedia at all since May. So I think the nomination is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sinclair C5[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm nominating this as a featured article candidate in advance of the 30th anniversary of the C5's launch (coming up on 10 January). This article has fairly recently gained GA status; it covers a famously unsuccessful example of British automotive technology which has become something of a symbols of the 1980s in the UK. I'm pretty sure it will meet the FAC criteria, perhaps with a little tweaking. Prioryman (talk) 20:44, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

I reviewed this article for GA, and have the following initial comments:

  • There are one or two action points from the GA review that weren't resolved, which I think were related to specific page numbers in newspaper citations. I took the view that these weren't required to pass GA, but they might need to be revisited for FA.
  • There is an outstanding Did you know? nomination here that has not been closed and listed, to do with potential synthesis in the article hook. That will need to be looked at further.
  • In the GA review, I gave a cursory mention of Crash, one of the biggest selling computer magazines of the mid to late 1980s, that had several features on the C5, including (IIRC) a retrospective towards the end of 1985. I'll have to dig out the specifics, but I dare say there's further information that could be mined from those sources, that may also merit inclusion here.
  • To meet the "thorough and complete" part of the FA criteria, I think we may need to go a bit more in depth into its post 1985 history, including the refurbished models, custom improvements and later media appearances (Brainiac: Science Abuse featured one racing a Segway and a fire-extinguisher powered wheelchair).

Other than that, I suspect the FAC stalwarts will have comments to make on tidying up the prose. I think getting it to TFA for 10 January is a tight deadline, but hopefully with some concerted effort all round, we'll be able to get there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2012[edit]

Nominator(s): Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Eurovision Song Contest 2012, which is currently at GA status. The article has since been expanded further, and also includes information on the official album release for that particular contest. Wes Mouse | T@lk 21:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, first on the draw is me. I was closely following this one-of-a-kind contest (not because of the political issues but because of the very location) and I have the following to say:

  • Lead citations are actually discouraged on FAs as the lead gives an overview of the facts and not the facts themselves. I am the one who promoted another article fluorine to FA status and I have a neat knowledge on what an FA looks like.
  • Ell & Nikki should have NBSPs surrounding the ampersand everywhere they appear as a musical act name.
  • The controversies section's placement is controversial, at least to me: it breaks up article flow from pre-event to event to post-event and therefore should be placed after the other countries section. Otherwise it is neutral, stable, complete and concise enough for an FA.
  • The participating countries section could use some layout improvements: only the participation map needs showing. Having two pictures "clamping" text on both left and right is usually frowned upon here. Parcly Taxel 08:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
That's a bit freaky, I was just at the article and thinking to myself if there's anything else that can be done to improve it further, and then bob along here to find just what I need to aid me. I'll address those points and come back here once they are implemented. Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Parcly Taxel: Surrounding the ampersand with NBSP in regards to Ell & Nikki might be a bit of a problem, as the article itself for the act doesn't use "NBSP", it is simply Ell & Nikki. Any suggestions? Also, moving the controversies section so that is it after the "other countries" section would make it out of chronological sync. Those controversies occurred pre-event, with some news sources mentioned within the section that were still covering the topic post-event, even though the demonstrations had died down post-event.Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Wesley Mouse: I meant non-breaking spaces around the &, not "NBSPs". It is yet another of my common shortenings – please think laterally! I think, however, that the controversies should be moved downstream as they are peripheral to the main event and therefore should not be covered so early on in the article. Parcly Taxel 09:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Parcly Taxel: Forgive me, as I have never heard of the term "NBSP" before, and I am still somewhat confused by them too. Would you mind providing an example, so that I can clear my confusion? In regards to the controversies section, I have moved it anyway, and I must say it does look better in its new location. Based on your suggestions, I have also done the same to Eurovision Song Contest 2013, ready for a potential FA nom. This is the first time I've gone down the FA route, and hope that I can learn a thing or two, as I am one who likes to aim for high standards, and learning things from FA reviews will help me to be able to contribute towards Eurovision-related articles with an extremely high standard of input. Wes Mouse | T@lk 09:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I may have just figured it out myself, you mean to input Ell&nbsp;&&nbsp;Nikki, so that it produces Ell & Nikki? Wes Mouse | T@lk 09:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, yes, put non-breaking spaces around the ampersand in Ell & Nikki. I think this is part of the MOS. Parcly Taxel 09:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Jonas Vinther

I will leave some comments later today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

With no offence, as much as I would like to assume good faith here, but I oppose to Jonas casting a review on this FAC - mainly due to the fact he is still in an on-going dispute over his reviewing procedures at the GA discussion page. As there have been concerns raised into his ability to carry out reviewing procedures correctly, then I don't hold much faith in procedures being carried out properly here too. Wes Mouse | T@lk 22:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment Check the whole article for tense, some sections and footnotes are written in the present or future tense. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nimbus227: I've modified the article's tense accordingly. If there are some sections that I have missed, would you be so kind as to point them out. Thank you. Wes Mouse | T@lk 17:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Much better, some changes have introduced grammar problems, a 'showed' was changed to 'shown' when it didn't need to be. I would get a good copy editor to have a thorough check through.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 2 November 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 relation to specific social movements as explored in contemporary academic literature.

As a note, when I started working on this article, someone left a long list of sources at the end in a further reading list which I have been paring down due to concerns about reliability of those sources, their accessibility (having checked, and relevance in an encylopedic context. There are many sources left, some of which I will be exploring at my library this month, but I believe the article is sufficiently comprehensive in its current state. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


  • Short refs #39, 43, 91, 109, 116, 122 and 124 in "Citations" do not match their full reference entries in "Bibliography" (author's last name and year must be exactly the same). Consider installing Ucucha's script to check for errors in Harvard references, it'll highlight such problems in red - makes searching and fixing them a lot easier.
  • Formatting of pseudo-headers with ;header is discouraged due to accessibility problems (but I don't know how to avoid bloating the ToC here, maybe another reviewer has a good idea).
  • Duplicate header titles (got "history" twice) within one article should be avoided. GermanJoe (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Short refs #39, 43, 91, 109, 116, 122 and 124 - Done, thanks for pointing me to the script.
Formatting of pseudo-headers - Done These psuedo-headers under the "Further reading" section will be removed, along with most of the section, in the coming week after I've made a visit to the library to check out and incorporate material into the article that is useful.
Duplicate header titles - Done, header under the Hachijo section has been changed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
If you like, give me a ping, once the additions and structure cleanup are done and I'll do a more thorough read-through. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: OK, all finished. I don't think an extensive "further reading" list is necessary on the article because the range of sources directly cited is fairly broad as it is, so I've removed it with the understanding that I've tried to access as many of these sources as possible. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • The "Zero" caption could be clearer - it's a bit hard to follow
  • File:Adolfo_Farsari_-_Dancing_Girl_Playing_Taiko.JPG should be life+100 not life+70
  • File:02_Taiko2.ogg: on what basis can the uploader release this file? What is the copyright status of the performance and of the composition being performed? That's a living composer and a fairly recent composition, so unless it's been explicitly released this is likely a copyright violation. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Captions that aren't complete sentences - Done
The "Zero" caption could be clearer - Done
File:Adolfo_Farsari_-_Dancing_Girl_Playing_Taiko.JPG should be life+100 not life+70 - Done
File:02_Taiko2.ogg - The uploader, Teohui may have some affiliation with the group (see the infobox in this version of the ensemble's article). Scott Harding is the composer, though. I'll see if I can get in touch with the ensemble directly to verify its copyright status and if they indeed intended this to be released to the public domain. For now, I'll be removing it from the article. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've contacted them, and am awaiting a reply... I, JethroBT drop me a line 18:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments (part 1, lead)
The lead looks fine in general, but could use a bit of polishing:

  • "The process of constructing taiko varies between manufacturers, [but must include the making and shaping of a drum body, choosing a skin for the drum head, and carefully stretching the skin over the drum head to create appropriate tension.]" - this info doesn't look important enough for the first lead para (isn't it true for most drums with skins anyway?). Personally, I'd find a brief mention of the traditional lengthy skin preparation more interesting (for example).
Done, but I decided to depart from your suggestion to focus more on the length involved in the entire process rather than the skin specifically. (I'll be commenting in-line for my own convenience; if this is problematic, let me know.) I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "... suggests ... influence" occurs twice in close proximity (not sure about a good synonym though).
Done. It seems fine to drop it the second time in relation to the Indian instruments and just describe them as similar (with an example) in the lead. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "historical evidence suggests that taiko ..." and "Archaeological evidence demonstrates that ..." - seem to refer to the same period, why are those periods mentioned twice? What is meant with "historical" evidence here, contrary to "archaeological"?
Done. I can understand the confusion here; my intention was for one to based on written accounts (i.e. historical evidence), the other based on actual found objects (i.e. archaeological evidence). That said, you are correct that "Historical evidence" could be either of these though, so I've changed the wording to "historical records." With regard to the periods being mentioned twice, I've rephrased this to say that archaeological evidence supports the notion that taiko were used in Japan as early as the 6th century CE. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "In contemporary times, taiko have served [as the basis] for certain social movements ..." - confusing without more detail, how can an instrument be the basis for a movement? Or is "taiko" referring to "taiko performances" here? Also a bit vague.
Done. It is about performance, but only for the sansei and gender conventions sections. The burakumin section is more relevant to the nature of the construction process (because they work with leather). I've rephrased this to say that "taiko have played a central role" in social movements. If it would be helpful, I can provide examples of these in the lead. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "...can be traced back to 1951..." - odd phrasing, events merely 60 years ago do not need to be "traced". His article simply states, he "invented" that style (source needed).
Done. Agreed, and I've changed the wording. There are lots of sources that say Oguchi invented it, and they are in the body. If you think this would be particularly contentious (it doesn't appear to be, based on my reading of the sources) I can source this if you'd prefer it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • " ..." - a bit peacock-ish, probably better with an immediate source.
Done. It's not really necessary to qualify the group in the lead now that you've mentioned it, so I've just removed it. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Other performance styles have also emerged from specific communities in Japan." - unclear, are those the same communities as the previous "social movements"? Also, could you name 1-2 notable examples here to give the reader a better idea of those differing styles?
Done. I've provided the examples. And no, the performance styles and social movements are not the same. Performance styles refers to the Hachijo-daiko and Miyake-daiko sections of the article, where as the social movements relate to the sansei, gender conventions, and burakumins sections. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider de-linking well-known countries (WP:OVERLINK), and linking Japan to "Japanese music" would be more relevant for the given topic. (Done)

Two quick non-lead points:

  • "Notable groups", "Notable performers" - lists with unclear inclusion criteria are discouraged. Suggestion: Merge both sections in one section "Notable groups and performers" with 1 paragraph for each. Try to mention only the most notable (atleast Japan-wide) entries or performances with a distinctive own style. Convert the list to prose and add 1 brief detail for each mention.
  • "Further reading" - completely optional (I know, it can be hard to pick), but maybe keep a shortened further reading section including only 1-2 of the most significant, helpful literature for each former sub-topic in one list. If it's not possible to have a fair selection of specialist books, maybe a few general standard books could be listed.
@GermanJoe: I'll need some a few days for the above two points. FYI, some of the groups currently listed there are not going to make the cut based on available sources. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use graphical templates like {{done}} (see FAC-instructions) - hope you don't mind, that I fixed them. I'll need some more time to read through the main text - it's a really interesting, but somewhat foreign topic. GermanJoe (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't realize it would be a problem. And yes, this is definitely a more esoteric topic, please take your time. I'll be pretty available for the foreseeable future, so I can quickly follow-up on your comments whenever you are ready. I, JethroBT drop me a line 07:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments (part 2, up to categorization)

  • Infobox - suggest removal of the list of musicians. Without detail this is just another arbitrary list (and the huge whitespace looks ugly). The section "Notable groups and performers" should offer this kind of information as prose.
Done, and agreed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider using {{TOC limit|3}} to hide level 4 headers from the relatively long ToC.
Done. I've also combined a number of sections that could reasonably go together to reduce the length of the TOC. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mythology "[One] mythological story ..." - are there other differing myths about this?
Done. There are not after some exhaustive searching for alternative interpretations or origin stories, so I've rephrased this accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "In [one] interpretation" - again, any other notable interpretations?
Done. See above. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Second and third paragraph need a final citation for the narrative.
Done. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The statues show one player beating one head of the drum with the stick, and the other using their hand to beat the other head." - nitpicking, but ref #13 mentions only one of the statues. Could you double-check refs #11, #12 and #13 and clarify the number and posture of those statues?
Source #13 (transcript of a museum curator's talk at a conference) only mentions one, but #11 (from the book Drum: A History) and #12 (from the Tokyo National Museum) clearly discuss two figures. Based on the description in #13 (He is beating the device with a drumstick in his right hand. Judging from this figure, the drum appears to be a hip hand drum), she is probably talking about the figure on the left here in this image from the Tokyo National Museum. In any case, there do appear to be two figures relevant to the topic, one which is playing the drum with their hand, and the other with a stick. The current prose could use some clarity, so I'll fix that up. I'll wait for your response on this one in case there is anything else. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In general, I try to copyedit a bit during reading. But it would be good, if a native English-speaker would go through the whole text aswell - my "German English" is limited and I have very likely missed some minor prose issues.

Your editor seems to add a lot of unnecessary whitespace, or it was already in an old article version. I removed most of it (afaik, such whitespace is against some obscure MOS guideline). I'll try to read a few more sections soonish. GermanJoe (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Antananarivo, the capital and largest city of Madagascar. This is a Level 4 Vital Article, and one of only three Madagascar related vital articles, with the other two - Madagascar and Rainilaiarivony - already at FA level. It reached GA and underwent a copy edit in September. Thanking you in advance for your feedback. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (just a few minor nitpicks and questions)

Comment - (only a few quick points, not a full source review)

  • town website in infobox seems to be down - is the address correct?
  • ref #8 - wrong dash
  • ref #21 - range 76-[66] typo?
  • some links are probably dead - see checklink listing at [[2]]

I'll try to take a closer look on the article later (when the first comments are done). Nice work. GermanJoe (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment The source for "By the late 1990s the population had reached 1.4 million, and had grown to almost 2.1 million in 2013" does not contain either of those numbers or those dates. It does give "1,613,375" as an estimate for the population in 2005... Mattximus (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Garnet Malley[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to commemorate the centenary of World War I, I offer another Australian fighter ace of that conflict to follow on from my earlier nominations of Elwyn Roy King and Roy Phillipps. Garnet Malley's score of victories never reached the heights of King and Phillipps but unlike them he did manage to live to a relatively ripe old age, and is probably of greater interest for his association with Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists during the 1930s than his exploits in World War I. His on-the-spot observations of air tactics in the Sino-Japanese War might've been of considerable assistance to Australia as war in the Pacific loomed but his apparent status-seeking in China seems to have led the Royal Australian Air Force to take his reports with a grain of salt. This has recently been through GAN and MilHist A-Class Review, and I'd like to acknowledge Georgejdorner for the initial work that got it to around B-Class. Thanks in advance to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2014 (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) 02:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4 and similar: this title shouldn't be italicized, as in the full citation
  • FN38: other short cites use fuller title - compare FN17
  • FN48: "shek" shouldn't be capitalized
  • Bean vs Cutlack: different editions but same publication year - is this correct?
  • Gill: which volume is this in that series? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, all bloody good points -- think I've caught them all, and highlighted that I needed to update the link for an official history. Tks as always Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: I had a look at this article earlier at A-class and having reviewed the changes since then, I believe that it meets the FAC requirements. For the purposes of this review, I have checked the following images: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • File:Garnet Malley 1930 (nla.pic-vn6256044-v cropped).jpg: source checks out, and licence seems appropriate;
  • File:GFMalley.jpg: licence seems fine, although the source does not appear to state 1918 explicitly. This date appears to be supported by the article, though, which mentions Garnet's posting to the unit in in 1918. Perhaps this could be explained on the image description page, or a citation added?
  • File:LukisRichmond1925.jpg: licence seems fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for not responding sooner, Rupert. Tks for stopping by and supporting, I suspect I said 1918 because that's the only year he was instructing in England but I should indeed add that info to the image file, with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco

  • Madame Chiang Kai-shek - Why not name her directly, rather than identify her with her husband's name?
    • It was the sources' common way of mentioning her, and I did think she would be better known in En-WP by that, but no reason we shouldn't educate people, eh? I think the relationship should be made clear without opening the link though, so how about "Madame Chiang Kai-shek, Soong May-ling" or similar?
      • That would be okay. I would hope that we are past the point where women are known only as Mrs. (Husband's name). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Well perhaps not, given the title of at least one recent book I've used, but happily made the change to the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • After the war he bought a plantation in Fiji, where he died in 1961. - died on the plantation or Fiji? This could mean both
    • Well, yes, but in the interests of brevity/flow I thought that since the plantation was on Fiji it was close enough for the lead. If you still think not I'll look at recasting...
  • the Oxford University air school - worth a redlink?
    • Maybe -- I don't think I'd be creating the article though.
  • was promoted lieutenant or was promoted to lieutenant
    • "promoted lieutenant" is standard militarese but if you think it jars for the general reader then I'm happy to alter.
      • If it's standard militarese, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Malley's final victim, - victim? Erm... is there a more neutral word?
    • Pretty standard terminology in sources, and I thought it better than "kill" as a variation on the ubiquitous "victory", but will have a think...
      • Alright... for me, at least, "victim" has connotations of crime. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • by a bullet in March, and shrapnel in May. - any information on these?
    • The exact date for one of those was not given, from memory, and they weren't life-threatening, so I didn't go into more detail but I could if you think it'd work better.
      • A little bit of information (like that these were not life threatening) wouldn't be out of hand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Peace Loan - link?
    • If there is one, sure.
      • No article yet, but it sounds like a fairly large project (mentioned in at least 3 articles so far) so probably worth a redlink. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The union would produce one son, Maldon. - worth saying "in 1940"?
    • Why not?
      • Uh, now I re-read it, the article says he was fifteen in 1940 and I'd rather not guess the exact year based on that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Malley's Ltd - I believe the MOS recommends we drop "Limited" and such
    • Okay, tks.
  • Southern Cross (aircraft) - mention that it was successful?
    • Was probably concerned about over-detailing but happy to add something.
  • One of the tasks she assigned him was investigating corrupt procurement practices in the air force. - did he have an impact? Also, link something related to the Chinese air force?
    • Yes, could certainly add further detail to this bit.
  •  in attempting to evaluate his role and importance – both within the Australian aviation scene but more particularly the decade he spent in China ... it is plainly inappropriate to dismiss or discount his contribution; yet equally it is not possible to verify all that he claimed, and therefore to attach the same weight or significance as he did in assessing his impact and influence. - can we contextualize this a bit better? I mean, there's obviously commentary on his impact... but that's not evident from the article. Another paragraph would be grand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Mmm, I felt the quote tended to sum up quite well what had been said in the paragraphs on his time in China (which for instance spelt out that any details at all on his first five years there was sketchy at best). The point I get from Chris Coulthard-Clark -- author of that quote and evidently Australia's leading expert on Malley -- is that there is little independent commentary on his impact in China. Perhaps I've missed something though so by all means let's discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • If that's the case, why not move the quote up higher, where the topic's actually discussed in-text, rather than below, which is unrelated? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, I've copyedited; please see my edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Fine with those, tks for looking it over, Crisco! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, Crisco, I think I've addressed everything one way or another now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Good work, Ian! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks again, Crisco. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

William Beach Thomas[edit]

Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a war correspondent of WWI who gained both fame and infamy for his efforts and was also prominent as a writer of articles and books concerning rural affairs and nature. He was imprisoned for his activities in the early part of the war and also much parodied in the Wipers Times trench newspaper. He was later knighted by both the British and the French. It has been suggested that he may have been the inspiration for the character of William Boot in Evelyn Waugh's Scoop. -Sitush (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Why are you italicizing the titles of periodical articles?
  • That is to be how {{citation}} does it when |newspaper and |journal are used. It does so even in the examples on at the template documentation page as of right now, although elsewhere in the documentation it suggests otherwise. Bizarre but I will ask around; perhaps the template has changed recently or perhaps I've misread things. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to be a recent bug affecting the template. See this at the talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've had a chat off-wiki about this issue with {{citation}} suddenly causing problems. The issue in this article will be resolved by amending the citation style but there are probably a lot of FAs and GAs that will require changing unless the bods who are into templates manage to fix this issue. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Eric Corbett: has helped me enormously with this, for which I am grateful. We've now converted all of the citations affected by the recent bug in {{citation}} so that they use {{r}} instead. There is one outstanding issue, which is my dislike of how citation #35 appears. That should hopefully be fixed shortly, whether I am here or not. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Done. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Auden includes a location, most other books don't - be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed by removal. - Sitush (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • although it was also met with criticism and parodied by soldiers: was the criticism restricted to the soldiers?
  • No. With hindsight, I think that the lead needs a bit of work. The body makes it clear that the criticism continues to the present day. I'll update this point when I have modified the lead, although I'm really not very good at writing those things. IIRC, Drmies wrote up this one, at my request. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Beach Thomas's real interest was countryside matters however.: I don't think the "however" is adding anythign here, and the "real" seems to imply his war correspondence was a "false" interest. Perhaps something like "Beach Thomas had a greater interest in countryside matters." or "Beach Thomas's primary interest was in countryside matters."?
  • Yes! Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • in the county of Huntingdonshire, England on 22 May 1868: Looking throughout the article, you appear to be one of those who disagree, but many would insist on a comma after "England". You could move "on 22 May 1868" earlier in the sentence and not have to worry about people "fixing" it.
  • Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • played [[Association football|football]], [[rugby union]]: any reason you'd shorten "association football" but not "rugby union"?
  • I seem to recall many discussions about football/"soccer". IMO, "football" is globally recognised as meaning association football, with the possible exception of the US and just maybe Australia. "Rugby", on the other hand is a less popular sport and can be confused with rugby league. That said, I'm easy: if people think it would be better to say "association football" then just do it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I wasn't trying to say I thought anyone would assume an old English country gentlemen would ahve played something like Canadian football. Rahter, I meant that I thought there was no reason in the context not to shorten "rugby union" to just "rugby". Although, I say that as someone who knows nothing of rugby. Or football, football, or football. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Ok. I've removed all doubt by using "association football". - Sitush (talk) 08:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • His exhibition was superseded by a scholarship but he was not academically successful: an "exhibition" appears to be a type of scholarship—can you clarify this second scholarship?
  • At Oxbridge, an exhibition is not a scholarship. I held an exhibition during my first year but it was replaced with a scholarship for the remaining years. At least at my college, an exhibition is an award of money (a tiny amount, nowadays - £60 in my case) but carries no other privileges or responsibilities: it is an award recognising ability and can be gained or lost in later years. Oxbridge scholarships generally do carry responsibilities, eg: reading grace at meals, playing the organ at chapel services, "officiating" in various other aspects of college life. I think this is something that would require elucidation at the relevant technical article rather than in this one. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • assisted him in getting his first job at a public school: the way this is worded, it seems to suggest that it helped him get a job at a public school rather than another kind of school; unless that's what you intended, I'd move Public school (United Kingdom) to the next sentence, qualifying Bradfield School.
  • Done, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • his duties while he holidayed: if you're much interesting in WP:COMMONALITY, you might want to choose something like "took time off" instead of "holidayed".
  • Not sure about this one. Someone could take time off because of illness or bereavement or something similar. Holidayed means what it says. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, "holidayed" means what it says where it means what it says. In the US, they "vacation" rather than "holiday"—there, "holiday" is restricted to the sense of "national holiday". It's hairsplitting, but if there's an appropriate common term, it would be best to use it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
      • OK. I'll change it to suit the US audience. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • published by [[Ward Lock & Co|Ward Lock]] in 1901, following his 1900 contribution: </nowiki>ou might want include the "& Co"—otherwise "his contribution" could appear to the contribution of a man named Ward Lock.
  • Yes, fixed. My familiarity "bred contempt" there. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • To his delight the newspaper's owner, Lord Northcliffe, recognised that for him to perform his duties well it would be necessary for him to live in a rural environment and thus limit his visits to London.: Lord Northcliffe appears the antecedent of those hims
  • It is a clumsy sentence. I'll work on it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • he explained that ... We could not run: not a fan of changing from one voice in the main sentence to another in a "that" clause (read it aloud and you may hear why); perhaps change "explained that" to "expalined:"?
  • OK, I've changed it. I don't pretend to understand why it jars but the change is minor. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Compare these sentences: "He said that he saw her."—"He said, 'I saw her'"—"He said that 'I saw her.'" A direct quotation is a direct object of "say", "explain", and thus cannot come after "that"; if it comes after "that" the quote must be indirect. Read "He said that 'I saw her.'" aloud and you'll hear that it parses very differently from how it reads. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 14:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Dank has copyedited the various lead-ins to quotations. I seem to have a general problem in writing those and will have to be more discerning in future, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • He described the episode as "the longest walking tour of my life, and the queerest.": again, a queer switch in POV when read aloud
  • I do not understand the problem here, given that it is a quotation. sorry but could you elaborate or is it one of those things that is can really be appreciated only if spoken aloud? - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • downplayed the unpleasant aspects of the conflict such as the nature of death: surely not the actual "nature of death"?
  • I imagine Beach Thomas' war correspondence is in the Public Domain—would it be possible to have a snippet to show what people were criticizing and parodying?
  • Someone asked this on the talk page ages ago. I have thus far been unable to find anything of decent length. It might necessitate a trip to a copyright library, which is a significant effort for me. I've seen very brief snippets and I've seen longer snippets on TV programmes but neither are much use in this context. However, I'll take another look at it. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • NB: my ideal was to have his 18 September report side-by-side with the parody. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
      • There is something from the Daily Mirror here. It looks very similar to the version I saw on the TV programme and to this cut-down version of the same story as printed in the Daily Mail at least for the section subheaded "Fantastic Monsters". - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
        • @Curly Turkey: I have just added this. I made a bit of a hash of it and I am walking away from it for a few hours but will it suffice once the formatting and citations are fixed? - Sitush (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
          • That's hilarious! Personally I'd arrange it so the real thing came before the parody, though. I don't think it matters if it comes close to the parody, but I do think it would be best if it came earlier. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
            • You're right. I've moved it. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The parodies of Beach Thomas in the Wipers Times were under the by-line of "Teech Bomas".: why shunt this into a footnote?
  • Moved it inline, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • somewhat contrary to the official line that tried to emphasise that this was a British war rather than an English one.: this'll be lost on non-British readers, especially us colonial-types who were taught that when Empire went to war, we were all automatically on board. Is there perhaps an article on this issue that can be linked to?
  • Not that I know of. I suppose we could link British Empire and England but I cannot see anything that might be more specific. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Improved with this. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It's not really important, but what I was getting at was not that people won't understand the difference between Britain and England, but why non-English Brits would see this as an English war rather than a Brtitish one (Canadians certainly saw it from a British Empire perspective). If there isn't something to link to, don't worry about it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I do understand your point. British people encompasses the old empire thing as well but I suspect that British Empire is just colonial. The quote says "the Scot, the Irishman or the Colonial". No easy answer and, while I'm not worrying about it, I would be grateful for input because your overall point is valid: a lot of people confuse the "Britain" and "England" terms (even within the UK). - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In 1918 Northcliffe asked Beach Thomas to travel to the US.: Did he go? What happened if he did? The way it's worded, we have Beach Thomas being asked to go to the US and then suddenly accompanying the King to France.
  • Yes, he went. Details of what he actually did there are scarce but I will see if I can pump it up a bit. - Sitush (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I've added this. Ford and Roosevelt are also mentioned in the prior source used in that paragraph (a book review) but that source is less clear regarding whether he met them or was telling an anecdote. Other than this, I would have to rely on Beach Thomas's book itself and, well, we already know that he was not the most reliable of sources and was prone to self-promotion. I could always get the thing out from the library again, though, if that is what you need. - Sitush (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • including that "comparative wealth [there] is admired, not envied": I had to read this several times to figure out what appears to be its sense—could this be "stating" (or somesuch) rahter than "including"?
  • that catered both for those pursuing: is "cater for" (rather than "cater to") a BrEng thing?
  • No idea. It has always been my usage but I'm no expert. @Eric Corbett: for this one. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • No problem, I just have to double check these things—when something comes across as odd to my NAmEng ears it's sometimes hard to judge whether I'm dealing with a typo or an ENGVAR. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Later, in 1946, he harked back to a lost world, perhaps even a world that was more of his imagination than it ever was fact.: in what way did he "hark back" in 1946? Everything that follows is rather general and vague.
  • I'm not sure that it can be improved. I don't understand your stress on 1946 and the entire issue seems clear enough to me (perhaps this is a failing attributable to me being a Brit? Some sort of innate understanding?). In large part, the rural revivalists seem to have engaged in invention of tradition but we'd need an explicit source to use such a loaded term. Perhaps we really need is an article that deals with the subject of rural revivalism itself, and that is a pretty big topic that encompasses art, architecture, philosophy, politics, economics, etc. It is also not limited to the inter-war years: for example, compare Oliver Goldsmith's The Deserted Village to Thomas Gray's Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • What I'm asking is: what happened in 1946? Giving us this year makes it seem like you're about to follow up with something concrete—an event, the publication of a book, a declaration of something-or-other ... Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
      • This was in his book, A Countryman's Creed. I have requested a copy of the paper by Malcolm Chase - This is no claptrap: this is our heritage - in the hope that I can improve on the "invention of tradition" element. That paper is already cited but, rather stupidly, I didn't retain a copy after using it. Chase's paper was published in The Imagined Past: History and Nostalgia, a review of which in Victorian Studies journal (JSTOR 3828139) does say that the collection's theme is "pasts invented by the Victorians to serve their present needs" - is that too tenuous a connection to permit us to use the "invented tradition" phrase? - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
        • No, I think that's fine—the only issue I had was what conretely "hark back" was intended to mean, which you've clarifying by naming the book. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • One of the sons predeceased the parents, serving as a naval officer during the Second World War.: is this all we get? No date or cause of death?
  • Not known, although he was killed rather than died of natural causes. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • who died at home: no cause of death?
  • Not without a copy of the death certificate, if someone wants to spend money on that. He was an old man. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Among the obituaries to Beach Thomas were those published in Nature and The Times.: short, one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon, and I don't see anything in this one that one grant it an exception. In fact, I might merge all three paragraphs in this section.
  • Merged and rephrased. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've managed to link the second in a footnote but I think it might be difficult to link either or both in the body text without making it look contrived. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You could throw it into a "See also" section. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Got it into the lead. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 'Support on prose, although as I wrote above I think the article would benefit enormously if an appropriate quotation of Beach Thomas's writing style were added. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sample added, as per our discussion above. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "he harked back to a lost world": Agreed with Curly. That means he turned back to an earlier topic; how did he do that? Did he write something? Say something?
  • I've just left a comment about this in Curly Turkey's section. Thanks for the copyedit. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • All images fine & properly tagged—one under a Creative Commons licence and the others Public Domain. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

History of KFC[edit]

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the history of KFC. Tom (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment Can anyone explain why this article didn't pass the last time? Given that explanation, we can evaluate to see if those concerns have been dealt with. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 14:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Stevietheman, User:Ceranthor had a few comments that I didn't have time to look into. but have since been addressed. Tom (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island[edit]

Nominator(s): v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the island at the center of the attacks on Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. I recently got stationed on Pearl Harbor and for the first two months here I was staying on this island at the Navy Lodge. I initially wrote Admiral Clarey Bridge which leads to this island. Then I started improving this article and I realized there was a lot of material that could be covered outside of the attacks themselves. I received help from User:Mareklug and User:Mark Miller and they should both receive credit if this is accepted.

This article has been peer reviewed and given an A-class review by the MilHist project. I am trying to get this accepted before Dec 7 so it can be featured on the main page on that day. I know it's a tight schedule and it's my fault for sitting on the A-class review for 3 months. I apologize. I hope ya'all can work with me on this one.v/r - TP 15:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review here.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Ooh, if you need it on the main page on December 7, it'll need to be accepted probably a couple of weeks before that, per the processing speed of WP:TFAR. I don't have time right this second (actually, I really need to be studying), but I'll try to start giving my opinions here later today, though I'm not a big MILHIST guy or World War II buff. Best of luck. Tezero (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it. Yeah, I gave Bencherlite a heads up a few months ago about what I was up to. I'm just hoping the stars align at this point. It's completely my fault for sitting on the ACR. Life had become pretty busy and I was trying to chip away at the ACR needs a few at a time.--v/r - TP 17:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I have a GAN that's been on hold since, like, the start of August because I keep putting off working on it and don't have a whole lot of sources for things that the reviewer has decided are necessary to include. Actually, I should probably just request he fail it and thank him for his time until I can actually get it up to snuff, now that I think about it. Things happen. Tezero (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, time to get down to business and defeat the Huns:

  • "with landfill from the dredging of Pearl Harbor." - a bit confusing
    • Can you tell me which part is confusing? Let me try to explain what that means: Pearl Harbor was originally called Pearl river. It was deep enough for the ships in the 1700s and 1800s to get through, but as the United States started to build battleships in the 1880s, it became necessary to deeper harbors. A underwater trench was dug (as seen in this map) to allow the ships to transverse the river up into the lochs. The east loch was also deepened to allow mooring within the loch and it was deepened around Ford Island, specifically, to allow ships to turn around and exit. Land that was dug up from under water was used to increase the size of Ford Island by nearly a full third.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes check.svg Done I also found out that land fill and landfill mean two different things. So I corrected inappropriate instances of that word.--v/r - TP 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The organization of the lead baffles me. It's... mostly chronological, but with stuff like the 2011 designation as an endangered site thrown in at odd places. Mind explaining what you were going for, or doing a clearer, more consistent organization scheme?
    • I organized it chronologically with grouping of similar topics. So because I mentioned it becoming a national historic landmark in 1964, I also mentioned the historic endangered list in the same sentence even though it's 2011. If I did it completely chronological then I'd have to use simple sentences and someone cautioned me against that. I'm willing to go with whatever you suggest though.--v/r - TP 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The island has been featured in films such as Tora! Tora! Tora! and Pearl Harbor," - ditch the comma
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 01:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ford Island is in the center of the East Loch of Pearl Harbor" - I know, stupid American who doesn't know his own history or geography reporting in, but... Pearl Harbor has lochs? Can you give a very brief rundown in the article of Pearl Harbor's structure? I don't imagine most Americans know, especially without even giving a link to Pearl Harbor there.
    • No problemo. There is the East Loch, Middle Loch, and West Loch. Most of the active base is around the East Loch.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Erm... I mean, in the article. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Righteo, I gotcha. I was just sharing.--v/r - TP 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if Flora and fauna couldn't be expanded. I know nothing about the life forms in Pearl Harbor, other than that the humans there are probably either timid or tourists. Are any life forms typical of Pearl Harbor also found on Ford Island?
    • The island is quite barren since the Army took it over. Mostly pavement and building, grass and trees. I'll see if there is anything else I can dig up, but I really doubt it.--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Minor note, but when discussing the name of the island you should probably throw a link to Hawaiian language somewhere.
OK, I think I have this figured out now. Originally there was some conflicting information about the interpretation or translation of the name and how to reference that. Reliable sources are firm on the interpretation but the direct translation and mention of the Hawaiian language is an important detail. No need to change any existing reference but simply add a small referenced line. I used both the online dictionary and a book source. For now I'll add both and we can trim off anything that doesn't work for FA. The translation is simply: "Moku (island, inlet) and 'ume (1- To draw, attract or entice. 2- Sexual game of the common people. Because opposite sexes are attracted to each other, the word ʻUme is used in the name ("kilu" is the game chiefs' would engage in). --Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - Let me know if the addition needs more work.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Can't stand one-line paragraphs. Can you expand the middle one in Ancient Hawaiians or merge it somewhere?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 01:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider italicizing or double-quoting the various names used for the island when they're discussed as names, e.g. Rabbits Island, Moku'ume'ume.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "9 February 1818", "28 August 1865", etc. - pfft, you might as well just be burning an American flag, commie.
    • Yes check.svg Done I'm in the USAF and this is the date format we use in the military. It's habit.--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "who believed that the land was fertile, sacred and could not be owned by anyone" - grammar; it should be "was fertile, was sacred, and could not be owned by anyone" or "was fertile, sacred, and unable to be owned by anyone".
  • The empty space in the table's a little strange. I'd prefer making it a closed-in space and simply nulling it out with an em-dash or coloring it grey.
    • Which table? Is it the "Army Air Force Aircraft at Luke Field" or "Ford Island Air Traffic Statistics"?--v/r - TP 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • First one. Sorry. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There are a few redlinks in the article. Yes, I know, this isn't a requirement, and I won't push it if you're not interested, but I think it'd look better if you either delinked them or redirected them somewhere.
    • (not the nom or a contributor, just another commenter) Is removing redlinks a common FAC suggestion? Protonk (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I could probably create a few stubs, no problem. I'll do that later today.--v/r - TP 22:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "was headquarters of Patrol Wing Two" - shouldn't it be "was the headquarters"?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island" - I don't understand this section title. It might help if some of the words were de-capitalized.
    • NALF Ford Island was it's name. I could possibly cut out the "Ford Island" part of it and leave it as "Naval Auxiliary Landing Field". Would that help?--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I so want to chime in here with: X mark.svg Not done. I was taught by my English Composition teacher (who also read in Anglo-Saxon to us for extra fun) that if something is at first confusing but on inspection passes muster, it is fine. This really is the name, and it is fine. One might consider reusing that full name in text soon after the heading to reinforce, but absolutely, Tom, don't fix what ain't broke. Kind regards, --Mareklug talk 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
        • It could possibly be shortened to NALF Ford Island - that would be an appropriate abbreviation.--v/r - TP 19:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Two short paragraphs again at the beginning of Film and television. You could probably just merge them.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is "F" used as an index for the "Attack on Pearl Harbor" category? The page is already called "Ford Island".
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Likewise with the "United States Naval Auxiliary Landing Fields" category.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's probably it for me; take a look at these when you have the time. Looks nice. Tezero (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support; I still don't get that six-word capitalized section title, but whatever; I ain't gonna withhold support just for that. Tezero (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Support from Protonk[edit]

I'll have some specific comments later, but I'll broadly support this for FA. See my comments on the A-Class review for some color on the suggestions I've made so far. Protonk (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I've made a few copy-edit so far. Struggling to find some more actionable suggestions. :) Protonk (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • You're sometimes including multiple authors in short cites, sometimes just the first - should be consistent
    • Done. I only found this happen once. With regards to the Dorrance cite, there are two different citations from William Dorrance. One has multiple authors, one is just him.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how author names are formatted - sometimes you have last name first, other times first name, still other times a mix
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in when or whether you include publication locations
    • All done.--v/r - TP 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Missing full bibliographic details for Lee 1966
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Compare FNs 25 and 59
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Prange 1987 or 1988?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Newspaper names should consistently be italicized
    • Done.--v/r - TP 19:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FN6: where does this page range end? Same with FN14, 21, 22
    • Done.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FN7: why is the format at the beginning of the citation?
    • That's part of the {{cite report}} template. I could remove the format.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FNs 11 and 12: publisher, page numbers?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FN35's formatting doesn't match the style of the rest of the citations
    • Done.--v/r - TP 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FN57: you've got the Command italicized here and the Library listed as publisher - neither is true of other cites like FN69, 76, etc
    • Done. Turns out that this citation is a copy/paste from a book. I changed the citation to reflect the original publication instead of the website.--v/r - TP 20:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FN78: page?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FN84: title, accessdate?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FN93: publisher?
    • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • FN96 is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Done.--v/r - TP 21:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "As the Vietnam War escalated, the U.S. Pacific Fleet required an intelligence branch in addition to the one in Guam.[1] The Fleet Intelligence Center, Pacific (FICPAC) opened on Ford Island in 1955, although the new office had little to do with Admiral Chester W. Nimitz's Joint Intelligence Center Pacific Area (which had been formed a decade earlier and then moved to Guam).[1][2] In 1962 the Navy decommissioned Naval Station Ford Island, although the island continued to be controlled by the Navy as a sub-component of Naval Air Station Pearl Harbor.": I'm not following your train of thought here.
    • Done. I rewrote the paragraph.--v/r - TP 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "the undertaking were about to begin": Something's wrong in that quote.
    • Done. That is a direct quote, so I added the {{sic}} template.--v/r - TP 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I copyedited some of this at A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - After my comments at PR, this has only improved. Do you still need an image review? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the offer, image review was done in the ACR. Thanks for the support as well.--v/r - TP 20:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Might want to leave a note to that effect for the delegates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Roger, left it above.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2003[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of "a man jumping in front of two boats" and "cleavers not spoons", I humbly submit to you this meagre offering. It seemed unlikely that anything would match the excitement of the 2002 race but this race took the proverbial biscuit. Dramaz beforehand with broken oars and wrists, and the closest finish in the long history of the event. The winning margin is estimated to have been approximately five hundredths of a second over the course of an 18-minute race. That's close. Anyway, as ever thanks for your time and energy should you feel the urge to review and comment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat[edit]

As in the previous FAC, this is nicely put together and covers everything it should. One minor quibble first: the blades in "close contact". They are either in close proximity, or they are in contact. Close contact is a tautology.

Aside from that minor point, I happy to support as is. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reworded. Thanks for your review, updates, and everything else. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley[edit]

Happy to support. A really readable article (even to me for whom rowing is pronounced differently and is a domestic activity), balanced, well referenced and comprehensive. I have commented elsewhere that "The race is conducted as part of the Henley Boat Races, but in 2015 is slated to be held on the River Thames" seems geographically dubious, as Henley is on the River Thames, and a tweak there might be desirable. Also, I'm sure the nominator has an eye on WP:DATED, and will adjust the "slated for 2015" aspect next year, but I just mention the point (with a certain tentativeness, having in my time raised the same point at FACs by eminent contributors including Wehwalt and Ssilvers and being fairly robustly reassured). Otherwise, nothing but praise. This is one of the finest in a developing series of Boat Race articles that are collectively and individually a feather in Wikipedia's cap. Tim riley talk 13:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tim, yes, thanks for the support and I most certainly acknowledge that I'll need to update a fair few articles, around 60 or so come next Easter. Having said that, it's nothing compared to the fact that the official Boat Race website has changed from "" to "" (and removed /men and /women qualifiers) without bothering to add a single redirect. I've probably made 200 edits fixing that little treat! But hey ho. Thanks again for the time you've spent on my articles and your support, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I see this review is overdue some comments, so here we go:

  • In the lead, "along the River Thames" is a bit vague. I would say "along the tidal stretch of the River Thames in south-west London", and I'd include the length of the race here, to give full force to the one-foot winning margin.
    Okay, have expanded a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the list of words used to describe the race, "incredible" appears in the lead, but is not in any of the quotations cited in the main text
    Have found the quote and added to reaction section. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "In the reserve race Goldie beat Isis and Oxford won the Women's race." I don't think that this is leadworthy information, since neither of these facts is relevant to the race itself.
    But the reseve and women's race are expanded upon, albeit mildly, in the main article and I believe the lead should summarise the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the main text, Background section, rather than just saying "south-west London" you should give the starting and finishing points (Putney to Mortlake), and perhaps emphasise that the race is rowed upstream. (note "south-west" should be hyphenated)
    Added P&M, but the race hasn't alway been rowed upstream so I'm reluctant to add yet another "usually"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the term "bow-man". I may be wrong, but certainly at my (keen rowing) school we called him the "bow", and that's the term I remember from commentaries, press reports, etc. There is a linked article which seems to verify my feeling about this.
    Ok, replaced with a wikilinked bow. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "line-up" is another word that in BritEng requires a hyphen (per Shorter OED and OD of E)
    Hyphenated. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Cambridge crew had a 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member advantage" would be a little more elegant as "The Cambridge crew had an advantage of 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member."
    Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "underdogs" – link to WP article
    really? I thought that was a common enough term. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    You are probably right. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Link stroke
    Linked to Stroke (rowing)#Stroke seat. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the main race description I can only discern two changes in the race's lead: at Hammersmith Bridge when Oxford overtook Cambridge, and on the approach to Barnes Bridge when Oxford regained the advantage. The article lead says "The lead changed three times during the course of the race" – when did the third occur?
    Yes, this is leaning on the BBC description of the race. Both their and other wordy descriptions would imply that Oxford taking the lead from the start is included as one of the "changes", hence Oxford took the lead to start, then Cambridge overtook, then Oxford regained the lead, three lead changes... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced by this. Someone has to be the first to get their noses in front – this cannot be considered as a "change" in the lead. If Cambridge briefly took an initial lead and were then quickly passed by Oxford, OK, but did this happen? If so, it should be explicit in the race description. However, up to the Mile Post the Middlesex side has a slight advantage, before the big loop in the river starts to favour the Surrey side, so Oxford being initially in the lead is rather more likely. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Okay, as I said, the BBC explicitly used the phrase "three times", but as you're not convinced, I've changed it to twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The actual race description, a mere 277 words, does appear rather brief, given the crescendo of superlatives in the lead which introduces this account. Such an exciting race should surely be more fully described, and I am sure that a little more detail could be added. For example, you could point out the significance of the toss, and of Cambridge's choice of the Surrey side. Also, you mention Oxford's slightly higher stroke rate at the beginning of the race, but there is no further mention of stroke rate at other points in the rate. I would really like to know what the respective stroke rates were in the final minute or so of the race, when Cambridge closed in on Oxford's lead. There is a whole book about the race (Blood Over the Water); shouldn't this be a source?
    I will see if I can expand the race section a little without going into complete jargon meltdown (ratings etc I think are a little too dull for 99.9% of our readership, and often give a false impression in any case, a higher rating doesn't mean a faster boat as you know...) or synthesis (the heavier crews, selection of station etc are all steeped in statistics, which I can cover here, but I'm not sure how relevant any of it is to this specific race...) I can look into the book, but I guess it'll kibosh this nomination should you insist I need to get that source. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I am sure you can achieve some expansion without going into "jargon meltdown"; I've read numerous sporting articles where this has been achieved (as well as others where it hasn't). My comment concerning relevant stroke rates was merely a suggestion, but it might enable you to mention what the relative rowing tactics of the two crews were – at present this is not touched on. And I do feel you need to explain the significance of the toss, which is of some importance, otherwise why mention it? Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Well, regarding the toss, I mention it because it forms part of the overall description of the day. I could describe the significance of the choice of station in each of the 160 boat race articles, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave that kind of generic detail to The Boat Race article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we need the (albeit brief) descriptions of the reserve and women's races? The article is about the "Boat Race", not races, and we already have the results of these supporting events.
    It is, but the tradition around the event means that the reserve race and the women's blue race are considered relevant, hence the brief coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Citations to newspapers that don't have online links should have page numbers. See 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 33, 39
    Yeah, my oversight. I'll need to talk to my source source about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    All addressed now using URLs and the {{Subscription required}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the article needs a little further work, particularly the incorporation of material from what appears to be a highly relevant source, unused at present. I hope, however, that any additional material will retain the plain, spare prose style, which is a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed review. I've fixed several of your points, one or two I'm not too sure of, one or two are still outstanding and I will address as soon as I can. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Pah Wongso was a bit of an oddball, in many ways rather similar to myself. Although of ethnic European (Dutch, rather) heritage, he was very close with the indigenous and ethnic Chinese communities in the Indies and later Indonesia, and married an ethnic Chinese woman. His work promoting education for poor youth and raising funds to help war-torn China in 1938 led him to have great popularity within the Chinese diaspora community, and as such the Chinese-owned Star Film produced two films starring him. This article is about the first of these, Pah Wongso Pendekar Boediman, and features (among other things) perhaps the most detailed plot synopsis of the film published since the 1940s. I hope you enjoy reviewing it as much as I enjoyed writing it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim[edit]

Too few nitpicks in this very readable article to defer support, just three comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Batavia—better linked at first occurrence rather than in "Production"
  • silat—not italicised in its own article, although personally I wouldn't call it an English word
  • See my response regarding this issue in Si Ronda, here. In short, English sources seem to italicise silat on first use like this or italicise it throughout. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • only successful because of Wijnhamer's existing fame—"existing" is redundant
  • Meant to emphasise that this was the popularity/fame he had as a philanthropist before the film (his court trial was reported in both Sumatra and Java, which is interesting since it was a fairly small charge, and he knocked the sentence down to a 25-cent fine). Tried trimming it anyways, to see how it works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Comment Leaning support. A few comments.

  • The phrase "returns his affections" or a variant is used twice. Given that it is rather old-fashioned, I'd cut it to once. "loves him in return" would be an example.
  • "Hoping to eliminate any competition" I don't see how "any" is justified, as it would not deter a third suitor except possibly through intimidation. Suggest change "any" to "his" ("rival" might be considered an alternative for competition)
  • Done. I'd also considered "the", but I've gone with "his" here. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
  • "Wisnoe is arrested". A short sentence, easily mergeable into either the one preceding or following.
  • "a battle to the death". I assume I know who won, but perhaps spell it out. I imagine he also wins Siti's hand?
  • "At the time, the Hollywood characters of Charlie Chan and Mr. Moto were popular in the Indies, as were imported detective films; however, no films in that genre had yet been produced domestically" I have several questions about this passage. First, are you considering the Chan/Moto style of film as not a detective series? In which case, it should be "genres". Or if you are considering it as such, I'd put an "other" before "imported". The sentence may benefit from a rewrite in any case. I'd also like to know, if known, why they were successful, given their Asian stereotyping, which in the case of Chan at least must have been clear to an ethnic Chinese audience. Even given that people were less hypersensitive about such things in that era, it strikes me as odd. If known, can a brief explanation be inserted as to why they were successful (which also lets the reader decide to what extent Pah Wong followed that formula for success)?
    • Let me check to see if the reason for these characters' popularity is in my sources. Added "in general" to indicate that these are over and above Mr. Moto and Chan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing. I checked Biran, and S' article in Pertjatoeran Doenia dan Film, as well as the biography of Djamaluddin Malik. None of them give a reason, although S notes that Sherlock Holmes, Raffles (Lord Lister), and Nick Carter (all Caucasian) had been popular some time before that. I can think of several possible reasons, but including them would be OR. There does not seem to be anything on Jstor (the only article which refers Pah Wongso is already cited here), and I have not found anything on Google either. Archived newspapers from the Indies don't give a reason, but I note that this popularity extended to Dutch-language comics. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • " the Red Cross' aid" possibly simplify to "Red Cross aid" without the "the".
  • " to act as criminals" there's a bit of a double entendre here that I'm sure you don't want. Suggest "appear" for "act".
  • Perform as, perhaps, to avoid repeating "appear" (which is used in the next sentence)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Release etc.
it was also screened internationally, including in China, Singapore and British Malaya" a bit clunky. Cannot the bit about "internationally" be deleted? It's surely implied by the next words. Unless you are hinting there may have been other countries it was screened in as well.
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. One comment left to deal with; I'll see what I can get. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, I've tried addressing that last comment, but no luck. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt, did you have anything more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Sorry for the delay, I've been short on time recently.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries. Thank you for reviewing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. I might quibble that two of the three have doubled Licensing sections, but since the content is right that doesn't really matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Nikki, fixed the double headers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Support. One minor tweak made, and one question: why does explanatory note b. carry the citation as (Barnard 2010, p. 65), rather than in the short form? - SchroCat (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • As in my previous nominations, footnotes use Harv rather than SFN because it allows for users to reach the original citation in the same number of clicks (rather than using SFN, forcing another two more clicks). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro[edit]

Another high-quality piece of work, up to the usual standards. Just a few quibbles then I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


  • "it followed the social worker Pah Wongso as he investigated a murder and cleared his protégé's name.": Maybe "it followed the social worker Pah Wongso as he investigated a murder to clear his protégé's name."? Not sure it’s much better, though.
  • Still trims characters, so sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The first of its genre to be produced in the Indies": Perhaps "The first film of its genre…"?
  • Alright. I liked it implicit, but I agree that it could be confusing for some readers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Upon its release in April 1941, it received popular acclaim but mixed critical reception": Maybe better as "Released in April 1941 to popular acclaim, it had a mixed critical reception"?
  • Much simpler. Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "A sequel to this possibly lost film": I think a touch more is needed about it possibly being lost. Something as simple as "The film is possibly lost" would do to explain this to the unfamiliar.


  • "Pah Wongso is a nut seller, social worker, and schoolmaster living in Batavia and taking care of the local poor.": Maybe "who takes care of the local poor"?
  • "Wisnoe saves the life of a young woman named Siti when she is almost hit by a carriage": Something doesn’t quite work here. It makes the life-saving and the carriage-hitting almost seem unconnected, so it may be better to say how he saves her if we know.
  • None of the plot summaries I could find have it. I expect that he pulls her aside, but the most detailed review I found (on the talk page) doesn't say. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "stand out among his fellow employees": Better as "Stand out from his fellow employees"?
  • You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Are both "however"s needed in this section?
  • The second one's been trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


  • "a studio which Jo and Cho' had established together in Prinsenland"
  • "This led Jo to direct a detective film": Is "direct" the right word here?

Release and reception

  • "a reviewer praised the film for keeping with Hollywood's quality criteria": This sounds a bit clunky.
  • "The critic and filmwriter Saeroen expressed concern that the film's success was not because of its quality, and opining that it was only successful because of Wijnhamer's fame": I think this should be "opined" here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: My minor concerns having been addressed, I'm more than happy to support. This easily meets the criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Unless I've missed it, I believe we're still awaiting e a source review, though I've had a request at WT:FAC for a little while. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in when you include locations
  • Konfiden or Konfidan? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Chanchu[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a powerful typhoon in 2006. Not so long ago that it's forgotten in meteorology circles, but not so recent that its legacy can't be properly assessed. It was the first of several powerful, deadly storms in that year. The article, I am sure, is a better account on the storm than anywhere else online, which is my main personal criteria for nominating something for FAC. Hope you enjoy reading it as much as writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • The caption given for File:Affected_Philippine_provinces_by_typhoon_Chanchu_2006.PNG doesn't seem to make sense as written
  • File:Typhoon_Chanchu16-05-06.jpg, File:Typhoon_Chanchu_17_may_2006_0315Z.jpg: source link returns error message
  • File:Affected_Philippine_provinces_by_typhoon_Chanchu_2006.PNG: sources for base map and data shown?
  • File:Typhoon_Pearl_in_Shantou.jpg: that summary seems a little sketchy...Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "₫26 million": Most readers won't know that's drachmas, so writing it out and giving a link would be better.

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Australian raven[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a bird I see most every got a good going-over at GAN and I am feeling pretty happy with it. I reckon any fixes will take less than seven days and promise to fix issues pronto. Have at it....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • blamed of killing lambs—blamed for?
oops, changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • the nest a bowl-shaped structure of sticks—missing word "is"
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The location that the type specimen was collected is not recorded—missing words "in which"
hmm, no but agree is ungainly. changed to "where" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • He named this the crow and C. australis (as Corone australis) the raven.—reads strangely, quote marks round names perhaps
rejigged it a bit as is tricky. added quotes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • As the climate was cooler and dryer, the aridity of central Australia split them entirely. —"became" rather than "was" if I'm reading this correctly
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the eastern diverged into nomadic little ravens and, in forested refuges, forest ravens —missing word after "eastern"?
added a noun Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ornithologist Ian Rowley suggested the western populations may be older in origin as they lack the vigour of the eastern.[5]—How do you measure vigour, and why does it correlate with age of populations. Reads like something from 1870 rather than 1970
I have rejigged it some. Rowley said it - who knows, maybe he was working backwards after noting the western one has affinities with the little/forest raven. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • galahs and starlings—links to species, and binomials since you have done so for other birds
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the logic behind binomials for birds and ticks, but not red fox, yabbie or Christmas beetle
oops, oversight. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Corvus_coronoides_map.jpg: source for base map and data used? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The base map is File:World map.jpg. I will get a page number for data shortly source for map range added now to image file too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco[edit]

The Criscraven

Once upon a noonday dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of animal lore—
I thought of the species, of Vigors and Horsfield, and was rearing
The subject had been "the two subspecies" the sentence before
A shift in subject it was, from the sentence before
Only this and nothing more
Onward I trekked through my page and a half of taxonomical flair
And across Parramatta district did I stumble, then implore
This great name could surely be linked, if you dare
To Electoral district of Parramatta, and its lore
And "Corvus australis Gould to be preoccupied", the lore
Unclear for now, and evermore
Upon this statement I stumbled, of ravens of intermediate features
And wondered, if in western ravens interbreeding did occur
I tripped upon the mulga-eucalypt boundary line, and in tears
I called for information, for data, for more, more, more!
Knowing so little, I can only beg for a redlink or more
So let us see it, I must implore.

To be continued... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Electoral
district of Parramatta
is political
Parramatta is
more faithful to the meaning
so I used instead
"the two subspecies"
has been shifted so it sits
more neatly in lead
no information
on hybridization could
I find - so unchanged
an explanation
for Corvus australis I
added as footnote
a redlink added
for mulga-eucalypt line
article to-be

There....six haikus....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What is it about the end of October? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
heh...not sure... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
comments I have read
agree with them all, I do
let me continue
The night now young, I continue on, moving forth 3 cm
Yet the loss of inches that I face ... Despair to the core!
I dig into this animal lore, and still my mind wanders
Questing for a link to Brisbane, a city I admit I adore
Though Canberra, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, and Adeleide I adore
No standardized linking is something I so deplore
Confusion strikes me, as I read of spiders, caterpillars, and friends
Which of our many-legged fiends are eaten by ravens on the soar
And which, at the beaks of the crying young, meet their ends
And must we again say it is not feet that do their chore
Of feeling and grasping and turning, all the bill's chore
This repeated repetition repeatedly leaves my eyes sore
As the evening grows dark, I must admit that I grow leery
Not wanting to push too hard, should I be shown the door
Dare I say that two sections are too short and bleary
Lead of Crow, trickster of old, but no examples of folklore?
And of the European and immigrant Australian folklore
Are there not films, or legends, or tales of yore?
Quoth the Crisraven
Forever sore — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I got them all done
but folkloric references
are non-specific

(damn...can't fit into haiku...problem is "crow/trickster" stories are often general for corvids.....will have another look.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Worry not, oh Cas
Question not specific birds
But specific tales — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I.e. examples of folklore stories would be interesting; don't just say its a trickster, show it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
damn - this is proving hard to find some specific to ravens. We have Crow (Australian Aboriginal mythology) already though....might need to go to library....or something... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support = What the hey, it's a really minor point, and we do have an article that goes into more detail. If you can get it, that's fine, but this shouldn't hold up the nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

Will add comments as I read along. Feels a bit anticlimactic commenting after the above, like being scheduled to play a concert after Led Zeppelin. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I think all bird article should have a photo of how the animal looks in flight (when available, of course). Could only find this for the species here:[3]
added it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Potentially interesting free Flickr images (article feels a bit empty): Individual harassing a rainbow lorikeet:[4] Individuals foraging on garbage (with an ibis in background?):[5] Some kind of social activity (caption says two adults with juveniles):[6] Individual with fish head:[7] Individual taking road kill (a Vanellus chick):[8]
hmm, need to think on these. none are as exciting as some others I've seen. I could also take my camera to work and see as ravens are everywhere (as are ibises and silver gulls, makes for some potential interesting pecking order type photos) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, they're not great as photos, but they do show some interesting behaviour not depicted in the article. The one with the parrot I think is quite interesting, and showing them with garbage would make sense under human relations. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "John Gould noted a single species of corvid in Australia, Corvus australis". Is this a synonym of something? Same with Corone australis. Neither redirect to anything...
I tweaked it to see if it makes it clearer. Essentially he went with precedence using the oldest available name, which was Corvus australis Gmelin 1788 - which was listed as from Tonga but was from Tasmania (note this is actually the forest raven, which was only recognised in the 1960s.) Neither links to anything as neither is a recognised name and there are other links around to forest raven and I didn't want to labour it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The above mentioned names should probably also be listed under synonyms in the taxobox, though they were preoccupied.
I added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "after declaring Corvus australis Gould to be preoccupied" Preoccupied by what species? I see it is in a note, but would be nice to see in the article, by just adding "by the black nunbird".
I de-footnoted it as on reading it again think it flows better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Any reason why marianae was erected, when coronoides was already available as replacement name?
Mathews' egotism? Mathews was a heavy splitter, so has described many subspecies now not recognised - this was a case over oversplitting corvids Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, could the sentence about australis being preoccupied be moved up to where australis is discussed? Now it seems a bit disjointed.
These can be a real headache. In the past with complex naming situations like this, I have been told it makes most sense if listed chronologically. The final australis ruling was much later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the story behind the affinis and difficilis synonyms? Seems like an oversight, when other synonyms are treated in some detail.
Added material on difficilis now.Looking for other. Found initial entry in German.................. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
for affinis, I can't say anything more than "Christian Ludwig Brehm described Corvus affinis in 1845, later determined to be this species". Shall I add it (or something similar?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good enough to me. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
When this is implemented, I'll add my formal support. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
ok done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Although called a raven" Maybe it should be noted that the words raven and crow have little taxonomic meaning? Now readers could be led to believe that the species is somehow "misnamed" as a raven, as it is related to species called "crows", even though it just means a big member of Corvus...
good point...I just removed "although". Will look for a sentence on the interchangeability of crow/raven Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, the sentence does not explain why it starts with "although". Two other ravens are listed with the crows.
agreed - just removed "although" and rejigged it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Rowley noted that the western ravens had features intermediate between Australian and little ravens." A bit unclear, the western ravens are Australian ravens as well, so why is the eastern raven only named as such, and not as "eastern"?
first "western" is ancestral, so left as western, second is western ssp. Rewrote second bit to clarify. I was being a bit sloppy there Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Since so many different "ravens" are mentioned in that paragraph, I think it would be clearer if you added "Australian" after each time eastern or western is mentioned.
enough now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Do the subspecies have common names?
Sort of/not really. They are generally just known as "Australian raven" everywhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to note which subspecies are shown in the included photos?
all are eastern subspecies apart from a single photo from Perth - I did wonder about adding but mused it might look a little repetitive. I thought adding locale would be helpful.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the sections about evolution and genetic affinities should have an "evolution" subheading under taxonomy? It's quite a chunk...
Tempted to...done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Anything on when corvids entered Australia, and when this species diverged?
Aaah yes, the paper has it :))) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "the feet large and well developed" What does "well developed" mean here?
the claws are described as "powerful" in the source, so maybe "strong" is better...changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "while the other four species have" I would add "of Australian corvids" the first time "four other species" are mentioned, for clarity.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Torresian crow is linked to a second time under distribution. Should it be?
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The video seems little relevant to the section it is next to.
been scratching my head 'bout that nice to have a video...but the bird isn't doing anything specific.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "that was banded and recovered 12 years and 5 months later" Live or dead?
alive! added.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "and so trees taller than surrounding trees are selected." Isn't either and or so redunda
reworded to "tall or emergent trees" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That's about it from me, looks good. A bit to pass the time with until next reviewer shows up... FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, all concerns addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Lithistman[edit]

While I prefer the form and structure of the "old days", when a reference wasn't breaking up the prose every sentence, I really found this article quite a pleasure. The image placement works very well, the prose is sound, and the content interesting. I love reading featured articles (and, in this case, featured article candidates) on such lesser-known topics. Given all this, and the improvements that have been made to an already well-crafted article based on Jimfbleak's suggestions above, I support making Australian raven a featured article. LHMask me a question 01:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

thx/much appreciated :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Victoriaearle[edit]

Support. Nice easy read, clearly explained - well, as clear as crows/ravens can be explained! I have flocks of something come through my backyard in the wintertime and have always wondered whether ravens or crows, but I'm still none the wiser. It's interesting too that the folklore/mythologies about crows/ravens down under seem to be identical to Native American mythologies. Anyway, nice job. Victoria (tk) 19:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

thanx - typo catches much appreciated! I suspect yours will be carrion crows. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio's comments[edit]

mostly introduction
  • In the introduction; "Scavenging on ... as well as lamb faeces". Needs more explanation for clarity. I recall hearing about hungry ravens eating horse faeces at a time when they lived in towns and villages in England during the winter when food was sparse. For the body of the article, is there anything about what nutrition there is in this sort of animal faeces? Would Australian Ravens birds eat faeces only when other food is in short supply? Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The sources seems to be saying that they eat them pretty readily. It does not elaborate on their nutrition. The birds are omnivorous so I dn't think there are any particular nutrients they are getting. I suspect that a newborn lamb's first faeces might have a higher proportion of blood and contents like that but have not seen anything in the source to corroborate that. I will try and investigate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I see. If it applies only to young lambs, then it might be undigested milk (and some protein in sloughed epithelial cells). Same as in humans. I have heard that some dogs in Africa eat (or lick-up) human babies faeces. I presume that the birds will not be able to digest lactose from milk, but it might be worth find out if this is a special case. I guess that, an adult sheep's digestion will be more effective and extract as much nutrition as is possible. Snowman (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Aha. I found some info about the faeces and have added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think it is more understandable now, as least for the faeces of newborn lambs. Would this imply a lamb up to two or three days old or something like that? Is the faeces of older lambs nutritious? Do ravens eat the faces of a lamb that is a month old? In the case of dogs eating human babies faeces, I think that this can continue for babies up to several months old, as least. Snowman (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It means the faeces of very young lambs - I don't think lamb faeces stay treacly for very long at all. I don't think it means more than a few days. Dogs eat all sorts of faeces of all ages so that is not a good comparison. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds a bit like meconium. Are you describing meconium? Snowman (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like. Pity the source doesn't make the link Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The grey-black legs and feet are well-developed". This has no meaning to me. I would be surprised if the legs and feet were under-developed or not developed. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
changed to "strong" - source uses "large and powerful" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Like those of the other two species of raven". I would suggest mentioning the two species or leaving this out of the introduction. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
ok trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Two subspecies are recognized". Chronology? I presume that initially when the species was described to science that the two subspecies were lumps as one type. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the timing is not significant enough for the lead - the splitting and lumping of corvids in Australia is complex (not surprising as they are all very similar in appearance!) and the person who named the western subspecies (Mathews) was an extreme splitter, most of whose subspecies are no longer recognised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is more complicated than I first thought and probably best not featured in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, this is very rare". Does this refer to killing lambs or being blamed for killing lambs? One of my books says that they can not kill a healthy lamb. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
the killing is very rare. This is the original paper. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I see, my book appears to have over simplified it. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes - the aritcle does mention it can be difficult. If a farmer finds a dead lamb in a field, it might be impossible to tell if it was weakend before it was attacked and died, or whether the ravens just found a dead one and ate it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Similar seen in introduction for re-phrasing. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Omission: I have just opened a book about Australian birds and it says as a general statement that Australian ravens are intelligent. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
All corvids are intelligent and as far as I know I have not come across a source that suggests they are more intelligent than other corvids. If the book you are reading has a specific example of their capabilities I think that would be worth adding. Otherwise I have my doubts. If you do think we should add nonetheless where would you put a statement and what would it say? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The article says that the peoples of ancient Australia noticed that raven was "the Watcher and was wily and unpredictable". This suggests they thought the ravens were intelligent. I would complement this with a comment about the intelligence of ravens in the main description in the "Behaviour section". My book just says that ravens are "resourceful and intelligent", so I would just add that. Snowman (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok if you give me a page number I can add it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Intelligence on page 351. Snowman (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a pity we can't use clips like this really... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
update - have added a ref which mentions intelligence and innovative foraging Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Its range is also highly correlated with the presence of sheep." Is anything known about its range before the arrival of sheep in Australia? Is there any association with the huge numbers of feral goats and camels in Australia now? Snowman (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Rowley (an expert on Australian corvids) doesn't explain but he thinks it was expanding (I think, will double check on this). I just drove from Adelaide to Sydney via Broken Hill and was surprised at how many goats I did see. Goats and camels are spread right across the continent and often in dryer areas where there are no ravens, so no there isn't. The books don't link them either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Is the range before sheep a mystery? Snowman (talk) 10:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
pretty much - sheep have been around since the start of the colonies here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest and for a sense of completion of this topic, is there any association with this raven with kangaroo's including the extinct species of kangaroo or any other Australian mammals. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Not that I have seen or read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • About juveniles; "... and sometimes have a pink fleshy gape.[30]". They may have pink gapes, but I think that this is a misunderstanding, because my book says that the bare skin on the sides of the neck and near the beak is pink. Snowman (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
which book do you have. HANZAB and rowley are the best sources for getting it right. Gape is inside the mouth. I have not seen a juvenile like that. I see these birds alot and even rescued a juvenile that couldn't fly last year at the end of my street. Maybe a very very little bird but juvenile usually means a 1 year old like this, which I took. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The book I had been looking at is; Simpson, Ken (1986). Field Guide to the Birds of Australia: a Book of Identification. Illustrated by Trusler, Peter (2nd ed.). Australia: Viking O'Neil: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-670-900729. . I bought it a few weeks ago from a local secondhand book shop. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
The exact words used in the book is; "1st year extensive pink skin on the sides of chin". Perhaps, that does mean gape, but "side of chin" sounds like outside the gape to me. The illustration shows some pink around the gape looking like some pink is outside of the birds mouth. Anyway, you should know what juveniles look like. I have never seen an Australian Raven. Snowman (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Aah well, if you ever come to Australia, they are all over Sydney and very easy to see. They are shyer than magpies, which my mum feeds on her verandah - the ravens seem happy enough outside the dumpsters and garbage bins Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Here is a juvenile on flickr and it has a pink chin as described in my book. My book says that the pink chin is seen in the first year, so it would not be apparent in the one you photographed, because it was one year old apparently. Surely, the description of the juvenile should include the first-year pink chin. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I have seen many ravens and never seen that. must be pretty young. I will check the source again and try to calibrate. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
update - source checked and info on pink bare skin of birds recently left the nest added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Australian ravens can kill birds as large as galahs (Eolophus roseicapillus)". It does not actually say that they kill Galahs, but birds as big as a Galah. A Galah is a strong quick bird, agile in the air, and its beak can give a strong bite. I am surprised that a raven can kill a healthy adult Galah, so could this be double checked please. Galahs form big flocks, so I do not know how a raven would isolate a healthy one. Snowman (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Source says, "On two occasions a group of C. coronoides was watched attacking young galahs, Cacatua roseicapilla, and one of these attacks ended in hte galah being killed. On one occasiona a coronoides was seen to seize a starling, Sturnus vulgaris, from a flying flock; the prey was grasped in the feet and borne to the ground for dispatch." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Of course, a juvenile Galah would be slower and weaker than an adult. Snowman (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
added "young" to galah Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • See Willy Wagtail behind a raven. The flickr photographer says that the WW was mobbing the AR and that the AR moved on. Is it common for AR to be mobbed by small birds protecting there territory? Snowman (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
small pugnacious birds such as willie wagtails and noisy miners readily mob all/any bigger birds, so this is not specific to the raven. Mobbing is pretty common - two years ago I picked up a stunned barn owl off the ground just outside my work after it was mobbed by ravens and pied currawongs (funny coincidence as barn owl is at FAC too) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It may not be specific to the raven, but it does happen. Article says that ravens eat birds' eggs. I think that it would be reasonable to say that smaller birds mob the raven as they would do any larger bird in defense. I think it would paint a better picture of the ravens going about their daily foraging. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't find any mention of this in hte HANZAB source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
This thread may not have been fruitful. Often, I have no idea what will follow after I find a topic to discuss in a FA candidate review. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It was worth checking. Sometimes we come up with dead ends Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Should the bulleted descriptions of the two subspecies be placed in the taxonomy section? Snowman (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
They are - the header above them (Evolution and systematics) is a level 3 subheading of Taxonomy and naming. Funkmonk suggested the subdivision of the section. It is very long otherwise. I thought the material on the subspecies belonged near the material on evloution Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Should the phylogram be headed Australian corvids and not Australasian corvids. The extinct New Zealand crow (Palaeocorax moriorum) and probably others would be included if the phylogram was for all the regional corvids. Snowman (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
ok. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just noticed that the Bismarck crow is native to New Britain and not Australia. The phylogram includes the Bismarck crow, so it can not titled "Australian Corvids. The phylogram does not have enough corvids to cover all the Australasian corvids, so the title Australasian corvids is also not suitable. It seems to me that "crow" and "raven" are somewhat random in the genus, so "crow ancestor" and "raven ancestor" on on the phylogram might be confusing. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
This is why I had "Australasian corvids" in the beginning as the Torresian crow is also from New Guinea. The Bismarck crow is only recently recognised as a species so is hard to incorporate if not discussed in systematic papers. Most people would assume that "Extant.." is implied in the heading. I don't think enough is known about the extinct NZ crow to consider it, and I would personally not see the need to add "Extant.." to cover it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I have read a little more about Australasian corvids. Of course, it depends on how Australasia is defined, but lets use the traditional view as expressed on the Wiki page on Australasia is correct. Lets also look at the chart that is in one of the sources; see Figure 2. The source lists 7 species of corvids in Australasia. The article has 6 species of corvid, but spits one that is not split in the source. The species that are missing from the phylogram in the Wiki article are the grey crow (Corvus tristis) and the brown-headed crow (Corvus fuscicapillus), which are both native to the island of New Guinea and are therefore Australasian corvids. There is also the long-billed crow (Corvus validus) from the Northern Moluccas. I am not sure if this range in part of Australasia or not, but it is on the Australasian side of the Wallace Line. In short the phylogram in the article only features some of the Australasian corvids, and I have no idea why some have been missed off. Also, should the explanation in the article of the evolution of the regional corvids include all the Australasian corvids or just some of them? Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
This is getting tricky. I have renamed to "Evolution of australian corvids" as it is what it's about. Thus, the fact that Bismarck crow is present does not contradict the article as it is a part of this evolutionary tree even though it does not occur in Australia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The text is that bit more difficult to follow now that bird names are lower case. I am not sure if Tasmanian ravens means ravens in Tasmania or the species. Tasmanian ravens are now called forest ravens, so for me this leads to some confusion in the long section and subsection on Taxonomy. Should the article use the name forest raven instead of Tasmanian raven? Snowman (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
they both meant forest ravens and are now changed. Tasmanian raven is an alternate common name often used but is confusing as it occurs outside Tasmania Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "eating rubbish and scraps". Eating food scraps in rubbish? Eating discarded food in rubbish?
changed - "in rubbish" is redundant I just realised as mentioned a few words later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparent inconsistency: in the "Breeding" section; usually 4 to 5 eggs: in the "Behaviour" section "During this time they produce two young each year.[40]". Snowman (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
No. Eggs often don't hatch or yound birds die etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I see. Something like; "During this time they produce two surviving young each year on average.[40]"? Snowman (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The introduction seems a little bare to me. I would think that either two or three paragraphs would be acceptable here. I suspect that a few more key facts could be added to the introduction, but I am not sure if a longer introduction would be better or not until it is expanded. ? colour of eggs. ? longevity of birds ? black bare skin on neck in adults? flocks of young? Aboriginal culture, more? This may not be an FA criteria based on length alone, but I am a left a little dissatisfied with the introduction, so my subjective impression would make it relevant here. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, I am trying to think of facts that would be interesting. The egg colour and lifespan are pretty unremarkable and average for corvids....let me think..........I added eye colour to lead as it is a common misidentification issue...... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do the sources say which subspecies live on the two Australian islands? Snowman (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
the sources don't explicitly say but it would be Western on Rottnest and Eastern on Lord Howe. They are at opposite ends of the range so is easy to figure out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
What about on Kangaroo Island? Snowman (talk) 23:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
It'll be eastern - Kangaroo Island is well east of border area Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I think that the article is interesting. It would be good to have replies to the last two topics, but even without those replies, I think that the article content has achieved FA status. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thankyou - I have been pretty busy IRL. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have read the new Stub, which explains where the line is in Western Australia. Snowman (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • See late comment on the phylogram above. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Australian raven's closest relatives are the other four species of Australian corvid: ..." The Bismarck crow is very close to the Torresian crow, and they were once thought to be the same species. Why is the Bismarck crow mot mentioned as one of its closest relatives? Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
it's only recently being separated as a species, so there won't be any sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from User Ceoil[edit]

Generally very good, but one thing struck me - younger birds have dark brown eyes until fifteen months of age, and hazel eyes with an inner blue rim around each pupil until age two years and ten months. The two years and ten months sounds very specific, to such changes take place at this specificity? Note, I am not a scientist. Ceoil (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

yeah...spun me out when I first read that too, but that was based on extensive studies of captive crows and ravens in Oz - and they found that all five do the same colour shift but at slightly different eh? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Ceoil (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
... and would it be worth mentioning in the main text that the observations of eye colour were made on captive birds. I am not sure about ravens, but in some species of parrots the eye colour can be different between wild and captive birds - possibly owing to diet or other aspects of captivity that is different to the wild. Snowman (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
have added an explanatory footnote now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review - all OK[edit]

  • No issues with formatting.
  • No dead links.
  • No DAB links.
  • Reliable sources used throughout (as far as I can tell), including Higgins (2006) as apparent "standard" literature for the topic - OK.
  • Several source points have already been verified in earlier reviews - OK
  • fixed 2 minor nitpicks. GermanJoe (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Iselilja[edit]

  • Fine article; the eye change photos add a lot.
  • Regarding the Relationship with humans section.
It says "shot, killed or poisoned". Isn't shot and poisoned sub-groups of killed? What does "killed" refer to here? Also, would it be relevant to include something about regulations: as I understand poisoning is not allowed; for shootings there are some regulations (Wildlife Conservation Act 1950).

d'oh! - removed the "killed" as those are the two methods used - intrigued that poisoning is not allowed given how much 1080 is used sbout the place for feral animals.....will have a look and see. Not sure if this is too general. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the birds are listed as a declared pest to agriculture in Western Australia. Relevant to include?

yes! will add a bit later after I do some RL chores.... added now 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use level 1-3 headers (they corrupt the FAC-page). Level 4 headers are OK though. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Route 45 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the last of the US Highways in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan to come to FAC. It runs in the rural western UP, and it is the site of an alleged apparition according to local folklore. While it is not that long compared to other highways in Michigan, the resulting article is a good compact read. Imzadi 1979  20:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this at ACR, where I only had a few minor concerns, and feel that this is yet another Michigan road article that meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 00:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well-sourced and it meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 19:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (1 question)

  • File:U.S._Route_45_in_Michigan_map.svg - (replaced) Source data appears to be from the Michigan Geographic Framework, but I am not completely sure. I noticed, that you asked for the data source during the article's ACR - did you get any information about it? (uploader has not been active lately).
  • Aside from this point all images are CC and have sufficient source and author info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Fredddie created a new map in a style that will match the other maps in other Michigan highway articles, File:US 45 MI map.svg. In doing so, he noted all of the GIS sources used. That will resolve the issue with the other map. Imzadi 1979  07:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      • OK great. Thanks to both of you for the quick fix. GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I see I was reverted ... I don't know what "debuted in Michigan by 1935 on maps of the time" means; this isn't the usual usage of "debut". Random House (in gives: "5. to make a debut, as in society or in a performing art: She decided to debut with several other violinists. 6. to appear for the first time, as on the market: A new product will debut next month." gives: "to appear in public for the first time : to make a debut". - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Dank:, this edit introduced an inaccuracy. First off, at that time, US 45 was extended northward from Illinois through Wisconsin and into Michigan, debuting in the state for the first time on those maps. Maps showing more than just the state of Michigan would have displayed the updated routing for the highway, so "Michigan maps" isn't quite accurate as maps of the general US Highway System, the Midwest, or even maps of Wisconsin would have shown the extension into Michigan. Sadly, AASHTO has only released committee minutes back to the 1960s, or we could avoid any reference to maps and cite the exact date of the extension. Imzadi 1979  00:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, that's helpful. I'm not going to make a call here, I'm just giving the dictionary definitions of "debut", in case people find the information relevant. I'm not sure that "debut" fits in this sentence (and if I had it to do over, I wouldn't have used the word myself). - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)[edit]

Nominator(s): JJARichardson (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC), User:Midnightblueowl.

Article about an American rocket scientist who is both recognized as a pioneer in 20th century engineering an an icon of modern occultism. The recommendations of the first FA review have been followed rigorously. We have expanded the article's reference body (including academic sources) to avoid over reliance on the Carter and Pendle sources and written more detailed descriptions of the scientific aspect of the subject's career. A copyedit by User:Chaosdruid has also significantly improved and provided a firm grounding for the clarity of its prose. I believe that this article now meets the FA standard. JJARichardson (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per my review at the first nomination. It appears to have gotten even better since. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Note Since this review was opened I have expanded the text using two more references: this article on Parsons' scientific achievements and this article on he and Cameron's association to Kenneth Anger. JJARichardson (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support. Excellent prose, it is well-referenced and meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Usually it isn't necessary to include "(pictured)" in the caption
  • File:Parsons_Kynette.jpg: why the EU template for a US image? Also, what steps have you taken to determine whether the original publication included a copyright notice? Same for File:1952_0618_parsons.jpg
  • File:Marjorie_Cameron.jpg: source and licensing given are questionable. Getty Center attributes this image to the Cameron Parsons Foundation; it seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder, and unlikelier still that the image was their original creation. I have flagged this image on Commons for permissions issues, but if you have any more information about earlier publication that would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the captions and deleted the problematic images outright. I think the article's formatting looks better without them. JJARichardson (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for FAC because it recently met the MILHIST A-Class criteria, and I believe meets the FA criteria. It was a significant revolt that preceded the communist-led uprising that occurred in Yugoslavia post the launching of Operation Barbarossa, and was in direct response to massacres of Serbs in eastern Herzegovina carried out by the fascist Ustaše regime in the Axis puppet state—the Independent State of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Independent_State_Of_Croatia_1941_Locator_Map.png: what source was used to create this map? Same with File:NezavisnaDrzavaHrvatskaDistricts.png, and the other two maps are sourced to the first one
    • Hi Nikki, I think the maps are sorted now. Can you have a look? XrysD has provided the source info used to create the maps. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Yep, those are fine now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Serbian_family_1941.jpg: direct image link is dead, and on what basis does the museum say this is PD? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki. The map(s) I'm following up with the creator on Commons. I've fixed the dead link on the family file, but all it says is that it is PD. The USHMM's generic copyright information is here. What do you think? On top of that, I think it would be a reasonable assumption that it would be PD-Yugoslavia/PD-SerbiaGov because Belgrade, Serbia is where the Museum is located. The former Museum of the Revolution and Nationalities of Yugoslavia has been absorbed by the Museum of Yugoslav History.
I'm not sure I follow your argument - the Museum of Yugoslav History may hold the picture (and they might have more specific information on its original source and copyright status), but they are likely not the copyright holder, and without further information I don't know that we can conclude that this is a government work either (SerbiaGov is more limited than USGov). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, I've removed it. If I add anything in place of it, I'll run it past you first. Thanks for the image review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: G'day, the harvn script is identifying that there are no citations to Niehorster 2013. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks Rupert! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Léal Souvenir[edit]

Nominators: Ceoil, Kafka Liz 23:128, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the most penetrating and careful represntations of a late medieval prole, even one so seemingly highly placed. Jan van Eyck signed and datd this oil on oak in 1432, leading the way for secular portraiture across centuries. But even this is to undersell the painting; there is a lot more bubbling underneeth the surface, given the apparent empathy in this man's expressive face. Co-nom with Kafka Liz who knows things about ancient languages and symbols I dont. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Tombstone_of_C._Vetienus_Urbiqus.jpg: since this is a 3D work, the photographer also holds a copyright - what is the licensing status of the photo?
  • Unknon photographer, unknown date. We might have to loose this, looking for alternatives. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Portrait_of_Baudouin_de_Lannoy_c1435.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:DufayBinchois.jpg and its sources File:Guillaume_Dufay.jpg and File:Binchois2.JPG. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Those aren't the sources for DufayBinchois.jpg. Two images that only show small parts of the image that they are claimed to be sources for can't, in fact, be the source. Where's the rest of the image come from? For that matter, they don't look much like the relevant bits of DufayBinchois. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: Per WP:LEAD, 4 paragraphs is a bit much. It takes up about 22% of the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, why not use File:Jan van Eyck 092 (big).jpg? This appears to be the version on the National Gallery's website. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I've chopped the lead somewhat, and replaced the lead image with the NG version, which, yes has better colourisation. Tks. Ceoil (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Sorry to butt in, I didn't see Nikki and Crisco already doing the image review. One more point though: File:Follower of Jan van Eyck Marco Barbarigo.jpg is obviously "PD-art|PD-old-100", but still needs some source information (ideally a link, or a brief description of the file origin). GermanJoe (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi GermanJoe, good catch. Added that now. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose comments (Crisco 1492)

  • The stone parapet contains three separate layers of inscriptions, each painted in an illusionistic manner to give the impression that they had been chiseled into stone. - Avoid repeating "stone"?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory) - letters or words?
  • Apart from the dual portraits of the donors in his Ghent Altarpiece which were probably completed in 1431 or in the early months of the following year - source?
  • Bit of OR here; Ghent is his earliest ascribed panel, and it has a portrait. Also it was "completed in 1431...". Tried to find a source that says this all in one, but its a low value statement, might just remove. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 8mm - worth using a convert template?
  • Coverted Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The oak panel consists of one board, vertical in grain and about 8mm thick. It is tightly cut at the edges of the paint surface, while at some point the support was cut in eight pieces. - didn't you just say this in the preceding paragraph?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Its - Your previous subject was "Infrared photography", which I doubt is the "its" you mean
  • original colour hard to read - is "read" the best term here?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Standardise whether you put periods after the c in circa (compare text and caption)
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Dab links: canon, Lucchese
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The first was on copper, an exact replica or original was found by Eastlake in the collection of the Lochis family of Bergamo in Italy. - not sure what you're saying here
  • yikes. fixed. Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • over two horizontal - two horizontal whats?
  • Removed Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • During the 19th century it appears in the collection of the Scottish landscape painter Karl Ross; there are records of a sale from him in 1857. - shouldn't this be in the second paragraph of this section? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Dup links: Erwin Panofsky, parapet, Erwin Panofsky, Bergamo, and Turin
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
sound Crisco, working, slowly through these. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the (really delayed!) feedback; I don't seem to have watchlisted this. The current revision is considerably better than the one I reviewed, and it looks ready to be promoted. Like Adam, I expect that the issue with the Greek can be worked out soon (at the very least, before this hits the MP). As such, I'm glad to support this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Crisco. Adam is on it, and I feel confident that it will be sorted out soon. He has been a great help so far. Ceoil (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment and image review by Adam Cuerden[edit]

This badly needs a proofreading. I've just caught two very big typos in the handling of the Greek ( ) , which weren't even consistent [Timotheus in first sentence, the theta appeared in a different transcription. Perhaps it's just the Greek, but it's not a good sign. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Other issues: "The middle inscription contains the letters "Léal Souvenir" (Loyal Memory)," - Technically, it says "LEAL SOVVENIR" - I'd give the actual text, THEN convert to standard lettering. Also, what language is it? Latin? If it's Latin, where's the é coming from?

As for the images:

Otherwise, the images are fine. Oppose for the moment - we need to fix up that DufayBinchois image, and I'd like to know what's going on with the inconsistencies, and think knowing the language of the title matters. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

all noted, and thinking. It's worth saying that the sources contradict each other, with Campbell IMO the most authorative and he does speak in meta at times, ie gives an overview, with refutations. The difficulty is that van eyck did not have a command of the languages, and made errors, which we had reproduced, but you 'copy edited'. Ceoil (talk) 04:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I looked at the image. That's clearly a theta, not an O on the artwork. "TγΜ.ωΟΕΟς" is patently wrong. I could understand discussion about the Sigma at the end, as it's weirdly shaped on the artwork, but if we're going to pretend an omnicron translates as th, but isn't a theta, and that, of two completely different figures on the artwork, both the theta and the omnicron are omnicrons, that's just patently wrong. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
actually we are pretending nothing, just reading, interpreting and thinking. If you want to be cute I will ignore you from now and carry on. You can either help and be construive or be defensive and aggressive. Don't really care, because I hadn't asked you a question. No to what. [User:Ceoil|Ceoil]] (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
your comments, position, refractoring and temperament is noted, but this is not a simple matter, and is being addressed, but I hope not within the glare of such an aggressive reviewer. Noted adam, now get lost, and I will post back when I am happy that this is resolved. Ok? Ceoil (talk) 08:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, what the hell brought that on? If you're so sensitive that simply pointing out obvious-to-those-who-have-learnt-the-language errors in transcription of Byzantine Greek causes you to tell the reviewer to "get bent", "Get a grip", and even an attempted outing that would probably have worked better if everyone and their brother didn't know I used to edit under a pseudonym, one has to ask how you expect to get through an FAC. We may as well close this, because the nominator clearly isn't interested in dealing with the problems. There's quite a few issues in this article's handling of foreign languages, such as "It reads "LÉAL SOVVENIR" (Loyal Remembrance, or Faithful Souvenir)" - well, no, it doesn't. there isn't an accent mark on the painting. You can't state things are on the painting that quite simply aren't there, but when such things are pointed out, you're throwing a fit, and devolving into insulting the reviewer for no apparent reason. If you can't handle polite criticism, you shouldn't be here. I'm not going to drop the oppose, because the problems still haven't been dealt with; but I'm washing my hands of this article, as I don't want to deal with the nominator. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Adam Cuerden, about the lettering: I think this file (the first page is visible) gives a good sense of how very difficult it is to write about Jan van Eyck's inscriptions. Suggest giving the nominators a chance to re-read the sources and sort it out. It's never easy with JvE (I looked at a few sources yesterday and they were all contradictory) - there isn't a deadline. Victoria (tk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks Victoria. Guys, please just try to see the other's perspective. Ceoil, you may have found Adam's comments a bit overbearing but reviewers are here to help and there are other ways of asking for space without telling them to get lost. Adam, your oppose is helpful for the coordinators to judge your level of concern, so you can afford to give the nominators a chance to act on the comments in their own time. Consensus to promote is best reached through collegial discussion. Thanks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
that's fair. I will not answer this person again, his oppose is welcome to stand, and his slander noted. I've always enjoyed the ruff and tuble of a challenging review, but something is very off here. The how dare you tone is one reveal, there are others. Yours in scumines, as stands on Ian's talk. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
You tried to out me. What the hell did you expect? I'm happy to keep this focused on the article, but you have acted abominably, and haven't shown the slightest sign of remorse for something WP:OUTING says should get you blocked. I don't want you blocked. It's a very open secret, and I've made the connection publicly a few times - but you apparently didn't know that, because you had absolutely no reason to bring it up. If you recognise your behaviour has been completely inappropriate, we can work on improving the article. But as it stands, you have shown no ability to handle minor criticisms of your article, and shouldn't be here if you're not actually interested in improving it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Adam Cuerden, I didnt know it, no. It was off the cuff, nothing behind it. Um, can we start again, considering there was no beef between us before this. I think Ian's advice is sound. If you were hurt or offended, thats not good, and I now apologise and retract. I felt somewhat dissed by your review comments, but I suppose, so what. The fact is, I would like your help on this article. I think its a very moving portrait, and would libe to give it exposure on the main page, in the best condition it can be in. You have knowledge. Deal? 12:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay, deal. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that File:DufayBinchois.jpg has more in it (the text at the top) than the two files listed as its source. It's obviously inaccurate, but it's not quite clear what's going on, and it's a bit of a blocker. I'm trying to decide if it was just really terribly documented - if we presume that the "sources" are "related images", then we can presume that the source is the book listed - but it would be good to know the image source - but I think it may have been cropped... Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • wanna hyphen in "inward looking" and "vertically cut"?
    • Tks Cas, as I recall we don't hyphenate after "ly" though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Today its varnish is severely degraded - "today" redundant here
  • link Infrared photography somehwere
  • link bourrelet and cornette too
  • Descriptors for Panofsky and Danens at first mention
  • This is now done. Kafka Liz (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. a good read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Victoriaearle[edit]

  • I've made a few edits; please feel free to revert anything that you don't agree with.
  • The description of pigments (red lake, etc) and fingers is repeated at the bottom of the "Description" and at the bottom of the "Portrait" - probably best to combine somehow
  • I've had a look at a few sources regarding the inscriptions and in my view everything that can be said is being said here: basically no one really understands the inscriptions but there has been plenty of speculation.
  • I've removed the accent from LEAL SOVVENIR - either JvE decided not to use it or it wasn't used in 15th cent French; but all the sources agree that is French, as indicated in the article. Sources seem to be split about 50/50 whether the accent is used in the title. fwiw.
  • I thought about suggesting italics for the foreign language words (and quotes for the translations) but I'm thinking for this article it's probably best not to follow that convention because "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς" is enough of a mystery without giving it a slant.

Otherwise looks good to me. Victoria (tk) 15:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Support - after really thinking about how to handle the Greek lettering and reading the article mentioned below (much of which is taken into account in the text). Elisabeth Dhanens has the final Greek letter as a character that looks to me like a squared off C, and the lead here says "The first inscription is in a form of Greek and seems to spell "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟς", which has not been satisfactorily interpreted but has inspired some to title the work Timotheus" (emphasis mine), so maybe mention too in the body that the final letter is difficult to read and perhaps a note about the various interpretations. Anyway, other than the small bit of repetition, no other quibbles. Victoria (tk) 19:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits and support. Re the accent; its odd that the NG gives Léal, but have decided agaist a page move, per commonname. I did toy with renaming it TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC, but life is too short. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I agree that it's odd about the accent, but no, I wouldn't do a page move. It's in enough sources with the accent. Victoria (tk) 22:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy Halloween. I posted some musings about the inscriptions on the talk page nearly 18 months ago. I'm not sure if they have been taken into account already or quietly dismissed (no doubt we should be comparing and contrasting what the sources say about the inscription, rather than adding our own glosses anyway). The article I mentioned - Paviot - may be helpful, but perhaps it has already been included indirectly through the existing citations? -- Theramin (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, square sigma, now added. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Article now gives "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC" in the lead, and later reads, The top lettering is in chalk white, and contains the Greek script "TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC", however the last character is deliberately concealed by a chip in the imitation stone, a device described by Panofsky as a "terminal flourish".[25] This makes it difficult to discern, with a general consensus among art historians that it is a square C or sigma sign. Campbell cautions that the fact that the inscription is in Greek indicates that it's meaning was probably intended "to be obscure", and that there may be a significant reason why the final character is partially illegible. He cautions that it would be "rash to attempt to supply the missing verb".[26]. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Also added - Art historian Lorne Campbell points out that van Eyck "appears to have employed the Greek alphabet systematically", and always employed the square sigma C for the Latin "S", and a majuscule omega ω (in the uncial form) for the Latin "O".[26].
The Paviot article found by Theramin is excellent, both for reviewing existing research and speculation, and throwing new light. Ceoil (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems to rely a little too heavily on Campbell; it'd be nice to include the TγΜω ΘΕΟν "I honour God" interpretation from - even while mentioning this is doubtful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Added...Panofsky considers the hypothesis the the final letter is a "N", and that the lettering forms two words rather than one. In this interpretation, the letters spell TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN, meaning "Honour God". While he admires the convience of the interpretation, and the fact that it would make interpretation more straight forward than if we accept "Timotheus", he rejects the posibility. He writes that "the presence of a shorter horizontal line connecting with the slightly tapering top of the vertical stroke and completing it into a Γ form... evidently precludes a "N".[29]. I wonder am I correct in using "Γ"? Ceoil (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
One more thing - this is a technical issue, but I'm a little worried that we may be mixing Greek letters and similar non-Greek letters, in ways that could be very confusing for screenreaders. To be fair, this is a very, very hard thing to do - lunate sigma, for example, isn't a standard character, much less square sigma. Would Ϲ be too likely to fail? Of course, there's a lot of awkwardness in transcribing very bad Greek - the lower-case gamma, γ, is arguably better transcribed as Υ, because not one source gives it a value of "g" in transcription. Upsilon, though, is shapped like a Y in upper case, and that's what the sources seem to be using? .
The second level of awkward is that TMOEN [Latin alphabet] and ΤΜΟΕΝ (Greek alphabet) are actually different characters in Unicode. For example, compare clicking on Ν and N - and, no, I didn't pipe the link text, that's just the letters linked. As I said, though, this is VERY bad Greek, mixing upper and lower cases, so we need to decide how accurate to get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support A really good read. I made some minor corrections; looks good...Modernist (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Modernist. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's try to figure out Greek[edit]

There's a lot of inconsistencies in how this article handles Greek. If we can sort these out, I'm actually quite happy to support, but, as it is, if you know the Greek alphabet, there's a lot of little errors and inconsistencies.

We have TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC, which appears several times, and TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN, which appears once.

First of all, γ is lower-case gamma. From the way the articles are transliterating it, it has to be Upsilon, Y [Or, more properly, Υ - yes, they look identical, but we'll get to that]. If it's γ, then the phrase becomes something like Tgmotheos when transliterated - Y gives Tymotheos or Tumotheos, depending on transliteration; Timotheos is within acceptable bounds of dealing with bad Greek. - Checked three sources, one used an explicit Upsilon, two used Y. Made the change.

Secondly, TγΜ.ωΘΕΟC and TγΜΩ ΘΕΟN are not as different as you're making them look. Ω is an upper-case ω. Consistency really is necessary here. Made the change.

Thirdly, The letters following the punctuation probably read 'THEOS' - this is just wrong. Θ is TH, ωΘΕΟC is OTHEOS, and if you're translating, you may as well go to lower-case. "theos" is, indeed, Greek for God, or, more properly, "god". Also, this is complete notSee Paviot 215 Original research, but O is basically the Greek word for "the". ω ΘΕΟC is the vocative. - the vocative addresses someone.

Added a note, but we need a source. Found LOTS of errors when I checked sources in this section - please recheck Campbell. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

"The "o" probably indicates the past tense" - this really, really doesn't make much sense as written. The "o" probably indicates the past tense; put together the inscription may read "Timotheus, Then God" - what? - I don't know what scholar said that, but they can't know much Greek; the greek articles - O and ω being two of them that can be attached to Theos - are basically one of the first things you're taught. Or you're misinterpreting it. But that's... I really don't get it. Hell, in Greek grammar, ending a verb in ω is basically the first-person present. I don't have advanced Greek knowledge, but... I'd really want a LOT more text before accepting that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole section this was part of wasn't in the sources! No clue where it came from. Deleted and added some material from the source that had related material. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fourthly, we can probably get away with T for tau, O for omicron and so on, but maybe we shouldn't? ΤΥΜ.ωΘΕΟ- looks the same, but is probably more accurate. I've added a -. I'll come to that.

Fifthly, there's a unicode character for the lunate sigma that's as near as we can get to square sigma. It's Ϲ - but I'm a bit worried on this one, as basic Greek is really, really widely supported, because of its use in maths and physics. Things like the lunate sigma? Not quite so much. On the other hand, C isn't particularly accurate. We may be best off just using ς, and explaining about square sigma earlier. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian specifically asked me to make my views on whether something should pass clear, after the incident where me not doing so led to something accidentally being promoted with a copyvio image which got to the main page. So oppose, because I think anyone with even a little bit of Greek will find this one aspect of the article really problematic, but we should be able to fix it, and the article is good outside of the Greek. But... well, see above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I did, tks, I'll walk through recent comments when I get a chance. In the meantime though, one bolded oppose is enough -- I assume the original one has been overtaken by this, so could you strike or unbold the first pls, Adam? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Done, although we do need to fix the image mentioned there. I still haven't figured that one out, although I think I might have a plan. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment - the image is from Martin le Franc's, "Champion des Dames", created in Arras in 1451. I dumped a comment about it over on article talk. The image has been removed from the article, though it's of a 570 plus year old page from an illuminated mss. Re the Greek: I ran the article through the screen-reader on my computer and it read all the Greek characters properly and "C" as "C". I ran the comment above with the unicode character through the screen reader and it skipped right over it (in other words, ignored, didn't recognize). I think if we can't create the character that looks like an "E" without the middle line, then we just can't, nor should we try to substitute with another character. My final remark is simply that we have to follow the sources. All the sources say the final letter is hard to distinguish, then various interpretations are given, and then various translations. But basically no-one is certain. I don't think our article can go beyond what is in the sources. Victoria (tk) 19:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but, at the same time, the sources are a bit confused. If I'll be forgiven for not using proper Greek characters where unnecessary: gives TYM.ΩθEO- [describing the missing letter]. that is, using a capital Upsilon, not a lower case gamma, but converting the lower-case omega of the painting to an upper-case one for some reason. It does, however, use C for square sigma later.
Paviot and Wood, rather horrifyingly, uses TYM.WθEOC - that W is meant to be a lower-case Omega. Let's not follow their example.
Also, when I checked sources - I literally couldn't find some of the claims cited to them, particularly the one I objected to. I only have access to the journal sources, but can the section "Inscriptions and identity of sitter" please be rechecked carefully, because two different sources were misrepresented in it. Both Paviot and Wood's interesting points are mangled, in particular, two separate ideas on Paviot 214-5 were mangled together in ways that completely change the argument. I can help out a bit, but when two of the sources I can check were completely mangled in the move to the article, I think we need to check all the sources related to the Greek in that section, because - to put bluntly - it was completely and totally wrong in several claims according to the cited sources. I'm also 100% convinced this is nothing more than an error produced from not knowing the Greek alphabet, without which the complicated arguments would be very, very hard to follow. Ceoil knows what they're doing. If you can e-mail me the relevant bits of Campbell, and any other sources talking about the Greek inscription that aren't the JSTOR sources, I will personally make sure that that section is fixed.Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
That sounds just great. I'll photocopy the pages from Campbell at work tomorrow and send on scans. It seems many of the subtitlies of your initial objection were lost on me. I have a good grasp of the history, incongraphy, context etc of the painting, but as you say not the the Greek alphabet. Thanks to you and Victoria both for stepping in. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've commented on the talk page. Victoria (tk) 03:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments:
  • File:DufayBinchois.jpg has source info added. Couldn't find an actual link to the file at BnF but the book is there; I found mention of it.
  • Sorted Paviot, Wood, and Dhanens, [9].
  • Commented out Campbell for now, [10]. If the book is anything like the size of Dhanens, it's hard to make copies & scans, but sounds like Ceoil is trying. The other points in that section from Campbell are in line with what's said in other sources, so imo, should be fine. Victoria (tk) 15:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
While I still think we need to do this, I'm also convinced it's going to get done. So long as it's not going to be rushed onto the main page, I really don't want my opposition causing this to be closed as not promoted, so am striking it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Commenting out the Campbell quote seems like the sensible thing to me, until we get this sorted. Adam, no it wont be rushed to main page, not until you are happy with the section. Ceoil (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Olympic marmot[edit]

Nominator(s): —innotata 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a rodent endemic to the Olympic Mountains of Washington state. I helped a little with getting it to GA a couple years ago. Revisiting the page, I think it is comprehensive enough and otherwise meets the FA criteria, and any issues with it can be dealt with in this featured article candidacy. —innotata 23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

  • Usual thorough work, just a few queries before I formally support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • terrestrial animals and avian raptors, x2—context suggests "mammals" would be more accurate than "animals"
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps link coyotes, cougars, bobcats, black bears, golden eagle, Seattle
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Colonies of burrows—Colonies refers to animals not structures; if this is a specialised use, as it appears to be from later in the article, needs to be explained at first occurrence
    • Rewritten. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • They are known for being very sociable—I'd lose "known for being"
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • large shape of its mandible—surely "size" rather than "shape"?
    • Both shape and large size, it seems. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Olympic marmot is a folivorous... They—Singular subject, but plural pronoun in rest of paragraph
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • dominant male if the existing dominant male dies—perhaps something like "incumbent" to avoid repetition.
    • Done. —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
  • answered legislators' questions to overcome bipartisan opposition—How did it get through if both parties were united in opposing?
    • Added 'initial'. Thanks for your comments! —innotata 17:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
No further concerns, changed to support above, god luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

Being currently in a rodent frame of mind, I propose to review this article. In general it looks well-written and comprehensive. Here are a few points I noticed:

  • "They enter hibernation in September, during which time they are in a deep sleep and do not eat" - "hibernation" is not a time but a state of inactivity.
    • Done. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The significant difference of the Olympic marmot's jawbone from the typical Petramarmota is also evident in the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis), which evolved separately, but also occurs in a restricted range with a small population. - I'm unclear what this sentence means.
    • Clarified. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm confused about the colour of adults. You mention various moults and various colours but I struggle to follow what colour the animal is at different ages and times of year.
  • The two parts of the sentence starting "In the fall" are mutually inconsistent. If the colour change is the result of a moult, the colour is unlikely to further fade after surfacing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Think I clarified this. —innotata 03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Olympic marmots are folivorous (leaf-eaters) ..." - If they are folivores, should not their diet consist entirely of leaves?
    • Leaves are clearly stated to be the main part of their diet. Typically when people say an animal is an x-vore they don't mean it never eats anything else. I'll address the rest of the comments later. —innotata 21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Passing thought - If they emerge from hibernation in May, mate 10 to 20 days later and gestate for a month the pups are born in about late June. They are weaned 10 weeks later which brings us to early September, just about time for them to start hibernating. How can the pups have built up enough body reserves in this time to survive a nine month period without food?
  • Since writing the last comment I have read the Edelman source, #2, and see that the reproductive cycle is not as stated in the article, but is 10 weeks from mating to weaning and the juveniles enter into hibernation later than the adults. The National Park Service source, #12, to which some of this part of the article is referenced, is inaccessible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Will continue later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've clarified when they enter hibernation, and corrected the part on weaning. I think this is resolved. —innotata 05:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
  • At the moment I am tending to oppose this candidacy. Looking specifically at the Description and Feeding sections I see too many instances of the article text not correctly summarising the source text. Here are some examples but there are many more and I think the article should be gone through carefully comparing its content to its sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hopefully I can fix this, soon. (Note that while I'm responsible for fixing the article if I want to get it to featured status, I didn't write most of it.) —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The middle paragraph of the description section is confusing and still does not reflect the source in connection with the second moult. The part about the adult coat should be rewritten in a more coherent fashion. The final paragraph of the section needs to be consistent with the middle one.
  • Rephrased. —innotata 20:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The use of the word "folivorous". Neither source uses with this word and one of the sources states "The inflorescences and upper 6-10 cm of new growth are typically eaten." A folivore is a herbivore that specializes in eating leaves and this marmot does not.
  • Removed folivore; someone just added it to increase links to the article anyway… —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Uses of the National Park Service source at #12 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg. " Marmots have a sharp, piercing whistle that warns others of intruders or potential predators, and notifies hikers that they are in marmot territory." has become "... in order both to alert other marmots and to tell the hiker that he or she is in the marmots' territory." The emphasized phrase is not the purpose of the call.)
  • Removed these parts, will look through more of the article. —innotata 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Uses of the National Park Service source at #20 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg "... a longer growing season may allow marmots to grow more quickly, mature earlier, and breed more often" has become "... a longer growing season in which marmots could grow quickly and mature earlier, and thus breed more frequently throughout the year.")
  • Removed "throughout the year" and rephrased a bit. —innotata 16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find any more of the article that is inconsistent with this ref. (The section on young I changed somewhat, but it didn't have actual inaccuracies.) —innotata 17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Uses of the Edelman source at #2 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg The article states: "Olympic marmots also communicate through the sense of smell to mark their territory. A gland located in their cheek exudes chemicals which they rub on scenting points, such as shrubs and rocks, to indicate possession." This is not borne out by the source, in fact, as per this source, these marmots are not territorial within the colony, and the scent markings are social in nature.)
  • Removed the parts mentioned above, will look through more of the article. —innotata 20:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Could not find any further inaccuracies. —innotata 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I see this article was expanded/worked on as a class project which probably explains some of its deficiencies.
  • In the feeding section it states that the marmot may kill late-hibernating chipmunks, but as far as I can see in snippet view, the source states "On two different occasions in the spring, I saw an Olympic marmot carrying a dead chipmunk in its mouth." I couldn't see the rest of the page, but it doesn't seem likely that it stated that the marmot had killed the chipmunks.
    • Well, a number of the article's other sources simply say that Olympic marmots kill chipmunks; I think an earlier paper mentions this behavior, so I'll see if I can find it. If I can't find any more specific information, I suppose I should change the text to reflect that Barash only provided anecdotal accounts of them carrying dead chipmunks. As for whether they killed the chipmunks, Barash says marmots can't kill chipmunks above ground, but probably do kill them while they are hibernating. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Changed it: they definitely scavenge for carrion, as many marmots do, and possibly they kill hibernating chipmunks as well. —innotata 06:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph in the lead has the animal's weight mentioned at both the beginning and end. This duplication seems excessive.
    • Eh? There's no duplication, as it mentions the typical weight, and then sexual dimorphism. I brought these sentences together. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The third paragraph in the lead mentions dried grasses, but these are not mentioned in the same way in the feeding section.
    • Rewritten. —innotata 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "During a study in the Olympic Mountains, 36 droppings were compiled and two of them contained marmot hairs." - I don't think "compiled" is the right word here.
    • Collected is better. Done. —innotata 16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bears probably rarely prey on marmots, as their presence close to colonies generally does not raise alarm calls unless the bear advances up to 6 m (20 ft) from the colony." - The first part of this statement is borne out by the source but not the second part, as far as I can see.
    • Specified the ref for that. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Cestodes and fleas use the Olympic marmot as a host, showing a secondary role for the marmot within its ecosystem." - It is difficult to view having parasites as a "role" and this is certainly not mentioned in the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It is a role, eh… but that does not need to be included in this article. Removed. —innotata 17:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I think I've resolved all the issues raised, apart from the chipmunk-eating one (and see my response; will get around to looking presently). —innotata 16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's looking better. I did a little copyediting. A few more points:
    • Thanks. Fixed one of your copyedits. —innotata 14:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The final paragraph of the Colonies section does not read very smoothly.
    • Improved it, somewhat, anyway. —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "... because they have more weight to gain." --> "because they need to gain more weight.
    • Done. —innotata 14:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentences in the first paragraph of the section Hibernation are a bit disordered and could benefit from being re-ordered chronologically.
    • Done. —innotata 15:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "... when colonies stabilized and survival rates rose to around 4,000." - A survival rate is a percentage figure. Do you mean the total population increased to 4,000? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —innotata 15:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I've addressed all your points, at least somewhat. Let me know what you think, and what more I could do. —innotata 06:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I am having another look through the article and in general I think it much improved: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • One image caption states "Clinton Hart Merriam, the discoverer of the Olympic marmot". He didn't discover it (I'm sure the native Americans knew it was there), he was the first to describe it.
  • I think you can still say he discovered it, but sure, changed it. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Bears probably rarely prey on marmots" - Are these the black bears mentioned earlier in this paragraph? If they are grizzly bears you could mention that and wikilink them.
  • No they're black bears, so I tweaked the section. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Good! I am now supporting this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK[edit]

  • File:OlympicMarmotImageFromNPSFlipped.jpg - added archive links (make sure, images have valid, active source links) - OK.
  • File:Olympic_Marmot_Range_Map.svg - needs a source for the depicted distribution range. Unfortunately the original map lacks this info too.
  • (optional) the map has 2 SVG-internal errors. If you know someone fluent in SVG, it would be nice to fix those.
  • Flickr-images show no signs of problems or Flickr-washing - OK.

Except 1 minor point (#2) all files have sufficient source and author information, and are CC. GermanJoe (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The range map was based on information in the IUCN Red List. It would be easier for me to me to make new maps, so I'll do that if I get the time. —innotata 22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Found and added the related IUCN-page (for now) - all OK. You can still improve it later, when you like (no need to hold up the review for a minor nitpick). GermanJoe (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

I'll give this a read soon. I overlooked this nomination because it started with "olympic", and I hate sports articles, so only noticed it was about an animal today... FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • The article doens't have any image that shows the entire animal. The ones that are available are not very good,but I think we should have at least one until a replacement can be found. Here are the "best" ones:[11][12][13][14][15] FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, these images are probably on par with, if not better, than what's in the article: [16][17] Here's a pretty bad one showing dark parts:[18] FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, replaced a couple images. —innotata 07:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "treated as a distinct species, a treatment" Sounds a bit repetitive, could the last treatment become "position" or some such?
    • Changed to 'classification'. —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't hoary marmot and other species (as well as everything else linked in the lead) be linked at first mention after the lead?
    • Done —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A cladogram could perhaps be nice under taxonomy?
    • I don't think so. There's not much confidence to branching within Petramarmota, so all that can be said is that the species could be the most basal Petramarmota (ie, it is the sister taxa to all the others). —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, if no good ones have been published. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • How do they identify predators, by smell, sight, or both?
    • Definitely mostly sight, in common with other ground-dwelling squirrels. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "and interact with other marmots only in the morning and evening. In between these times, Olympic marmots can sometimes be found lying on rocks where they sun themselves for warmth, grooming each other, playing, chirping, and feeding together." Doesn't this contradict itself?
    • I removed the first part, since it seems like that's the mistake. —innotata 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "On some occasions, the other marmots in the colony will make a trip over to the satellite male's burrow since he cannot leave that area, often about two times an hour." For what purposes?
    • The source doesn't explicity say, so I hesitate to change this. To keep tabs on him in some way, for the respective reasons of the dominant male and the females. —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "By 2006, numbers had dropped to 1,000 individuals" From what? The earlier estimate is explained as inaccurate.
    • Some unknown number higher than 2,000; as stated in the article, conservationists knew the old counts were underestimates, but that more accurate new ones were even lower. That's how it looks, at least. —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "to overcome initial bipartisan opposition to a new state symbol" What was the former?
    • No, the opposition was to adding a state symbol, a "state endemic mammal" as well as a "state bird" and "state flower" and so on. This is a common thing here, some states have a couple dozen symbols, and mine has a state photograph and state muffin. I think this makes sense in context, but I suppose it could be changed to "another" or "an additional". —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that addition would be nice, confusing for a non American. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Only one issue to be addressed before I support. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - everything addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Trey Burke[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a professional basketball player who was recently in the national spotlight as the 2013 National player of the year. The article covers the subject well.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified Moisejp, the GA reviewer.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified WP:MICHIGAN, WP:NBA, WP:CBBALL, WP:WPBIO and WP:BBALL as well as Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have also notified the discussants of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012–13 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team/archive1 (Giants2008, Toa Nidhiki05, MarshalN20, Skotywa, Yellow Evan, and Elcid.ruderico)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified Utah Jazz editor Charlesaaronthompson as well as 2013–14 Utah Jazz season editors Sirex98, AmazingGamer 91, and Thebrainthinker--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


  • The 3rd graph of the lead, which covers his collegiate year needs quite a bit of trimming. We do not need to list every award here, especially 2nd team awards. The reader should get the feel he was well regarded as a player, but not so much they stop reading this paragraph and move on to the next.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 03:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


  • Giants2008, please re-evaluate your concerns. It would be most helpful if you would strike resolved issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Is there anything else available on what the "violation of team standards" actually was?
    • The "Although Burke admits that the team he leads" sentence is outdated, seemingly dating back to when the tournament was taking place. I'd just remove it; the sentence doesn't add much at this point, and this is already a long paragraph.
    • I see 1,231 and 1218 late in this section. You should decide whether or not to include the comma in general and go with one consistent style.
    • Watchlists and Awards and honors: Both of these sections contain a large amount of proseline writing. The "On [date]" style of sentence is seen time and time again, making for a less-than-optimal read. Try to vary the prose a little more if possible.
    • The photo by Awards and honors needs the first word of its caption capitalized.
    • 2013 NBA Draft: Another outdated sentence is "Even if he does not get selected first, he is likely to be the first point guard taken, especially since Marcus Smart opted out of the draft."
    • Utah Jazz: The em dashes at the start should be unspaced per the MoS.
    • A smaller en dash is needed for the date range 8-12.
    • Don't think "Rookie" should be capitalized in "Burke was the first Rookie to post...".
    • Personal life: Remove "his" from "Three former Northland teammates are current or former his Big Ten competitors".
    • Ref 31 is a dead link.
    • Ref 259 has some ugly red text; it looks like there's one too many numbers in one of the dates. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Karen[edit]

Nominator(s): Temporary cyclone north.svg Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Typhoon Karen in 1962 is regarded as one of the wost natural disasters in the history of Guam. A powerful Category 5-equivalent storm, Karen battered the island with winds estimated at 285 km/h (185 mph), destroying the majority Guam's infrastructure and devastating the environment. Some referred to the wasteland left behind as "hell" with almost nothing left standing in the storm's wake. Despite the ferocity of Karen, relatively few people lost their lives. In the years following Karen, a massive change in how the United States handled Guam took place. Formerly an area of military occupation, Karen paved the way for military security to disbanded and allowed the economy to flourish.

From a mighty disaster came a new beginning for Guam. Both the economy and infrastructure of the island were overhauled due to the typhoon and Karen is the key catalyst that has made Guam what it is today. I hope you all enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it! Regards, Temporary cyclone north.svg Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Support as GA reviewer. That being said, I have just a few tiny nitpicks.

  • You should explicitly mention SSHS in the lead if you're gonna say Category 5.
  • Link maximum sustained winds in the lead?
  • " Total losses on the island amounted to $250 million" - are losses and damages the same?
  • "either California, Hawaii, or Wake Island" - either implies only two. I'd drop that word.
  • " it was later attributed with improving" - change "with" to "to"
  • Maybe indicate where Truk is in the MH? Otherwise, if you started upon reading the MH, there is no indication which ocean or continent the storm formed near.
  • "The lowest verified pressure was 931.9 mb (hPa; 27.52 inHg) at the Agana Naval Air Station." how is this the lowest if the one after it was lower?
  • The lead says that Karen reached peak intensity after Guam, but the MH doesn't mesh with that. How come?
  • "Wind gusts over the southern tip of Guam were estimated to have peaked around 185 km/h (115 mph)." ... " Based on this measurement, a study in 1996 estimated that gusts peaked between 280 and 295 km/h (175 and 185 mph) over southern areas of the island." = see the problem?
  • "The ROK Han Ra San and RPS Negros Oriental sunk" --> "sank"

Just those few little things. I'm still happy to support :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

    • Just noting ... several of those were fixed, "sank" wasn't. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Now I've checked all of them and fixed "sank". All were fixed except possibly the one about "wind gusts". - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

All images have sufficient source and author information and are either CC or work of the US military. GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • Per WP:MOSTIME: "Context determines whether the 12- or 24-hour clock is used; in both, colons separate hours, minutes and seconds". I put in colons in half of the article already; please do the rest.
  • "The damage across Guam was described as "'much more serious than that of 1944' when [United States] troops liberated the island."[1]": That's more of a spotcheck problem: you're representing material quoted from two sources as if it came from one source.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Lafayette dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin where it is perhaps fortunate that the engraver did not have to inscribe the subject's full name. The usual tale of a poor design and worse sales, with bit appearances from some of the Gay Nineties people from my political articles.Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Lafayette_-_Paris.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the statue? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I've dealt with these matters. Thanks to both of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review Just a couple of quick thoughts/comments:

  • Of the 43 footnotes, all but two are shortened. The article from The New York Times hasn't been shortened, which is understandable since it isn't a book like the others, but footnote 32 is citing a book. I think that should be shortened like the other books for consistency. (Also, you might want to add |via=Google Books to the full citation for that source, and any others where it would be appropriate, to indicate that the online copy is hosted there.)
  • You may want to enclose the list of books below the footnotes with {{refbegin}} and {{refend}} so that the text size and other formatting matches up with the list generated by {{reflist}}
  • You many want to consider adding |lastauthoramp=yes to the full Swiatek & Breen and citation so that it uses the ampersand in front of the last author in the list. That way it would render the authors of that source "Swiatek, Anthony & Breen, Walter".
  • It would be nice if ISBNs or OCLC numbers were added where possible. For example, based on the Google Books information for the Adams book, the OCLC for that source is OCLC 191237505.
  • You may want to tweak the Peck source to use |volume=vol. 1; once the value for |volume= expands like that, the boldfacing is dropped. Also, it makes it clearer that the "I" is in fact a volume number.
  • You may also want to change the Slabaugh citation to use |edition=2nd since I think that's more commonly rendered with the numeral than spelled out.
  • Corporate designations like "Inc", "LLC" and even "Company" are typically omitted from the names of publishers in citations. The fact that Whitman Publishing was division of Western Publishing in 1975 is also pretty superfluous to the goal of a good citation: enabling a reader to locate a copy of the source to consult.

All of the above are offered as thoughts to improve on the consistency in formatting the sources used. In general, I find the sources used to be of the standard expected for a Featured Article (high-quality reliable sources). Imzadi 1979  06:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for those. I have gotten most, I think. I'm going to stay pedantic and keep with the LLC and all that. Your comment on the Slabaugh book (Whitman/Western), it was raised in a source review on another FAC as the ISBN (as I recall) was recorded as for Western, so in an excess of caution I'm going to keep that status quo.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I have done something of a peer review here, so quite a few comments but nothing of huge significance:

  • "it was the only US commemorative prior to 1983 to be a silver dollar" → "it was the only US silver dollar commemorative prior to 1983"
  • "valued at several hundred dollars to tens of thousands" – the "at" should be "from" (idiom is from–to not at–to)
These two done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary to trundle out Lafayette's multiple names here – there's a linked article which readers can consult for this information. Is there any reason why the first two short paras shouldn't be combined?
  • Second para: "suggested" → "suggests" (and perhaps throughout)?
  • "King Louis XVI ordered that he not go on the demand of the British ambassador." Somewhat clumsy, and vaguely ambiguous. I suggest "...on the demand of the British ambassador, King Louis XVI ordered him not to go."
  • "The marquis escaped through disguise as a courier": Is "escaped" the right word? Presumably he wasn't being held captive. I'd prefer: "The marquis got away, disguised as a courier"
  • "The reasons for this included that the 19-year-old sought no pay from the nascent nation, and also Congress received a letter from American envoy to France Benjamin Franklin, stating that Lafayette's family was wealthy and influential." Maybe 1775 is a little early for "nascent" (i.e. new-born), a year before the Declaration of Independence? Otherwise, the sentence does not parse well at the moment. Perhaps: "The reasons for this included the 19-year-old's refusal to accept pay from the nascent nation, and also that Congress had received a letter from Benjamin Franklin, American envoy to France, stating that Lafayette's family was wealthy and influential."
At this point we are discussing 1777. I'll play with your wording.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarify that Cornwallis was the British commander at Yorktown (not everyone knows this)
  • The sentence that ends the section needs attribution.
  • Generally – I found this section somewhat overdetailed, diverting focus from the coin. The importance of Lafayette in US history, and thus the justification for the commemorative coin, could be summarised more briefly.
Identified, attributed, and shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "which though reported favorably by the committee" – should be "reported on", but "which though received favorably by the committee" would be more elegant
"reported favorably" is political-talk and it is what is said of bills given a thumbs up by a committee. I've rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "to see to it that" → "to ensure that"
  • "Another means of fundraising was a proposed commemorative coin" – probably "Another proposed means of fundraising was a commemorative coin"?
  • The words "when Barber wrote to Roberts" don't seem necessary within the narrative
  • "Afterwards, Barber reported to the Mint Director, "I think we will hear no more of the Lafayette prayer" and that Peck now appreciated that the space available for a design, even on a silver dollar (the largest US coin) was limited, "and as it is the desire of the Committee [commission] to have the monument displayed, the prayer will have to find some other place". Super-long, super-complicated for a single sentence. Needs reorganisation.
  • "Slabaugh noted" and "according to Slabaugh" should not occur within one sentence
  • "United States of America" and "Lafayette Dollar" appear at the top and bottom of the obverse." It's not clear what coin this sentence is referring to. It follows immediately on information relating to Krider's medals, and reads as though it's about them, though I doubt that it is.
  • "which customarily in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield..." etc – is there a source for this and the other given assumptions?
There's some discussion of it here. I've toned it down, since there seem to be doubts in the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Some punctuation missing un this quote? "Lafayette is represented in the statue as a fact and a symbol, offering his sword and services to the American colonists in the cause of liberty he appears as the emblem of the aristocratic and enthusiastic sympathy shown by France to our forefathers." A sentence break is necessary, best after "cause of liberty" but possibly after "American colonists".
I'm traveling but will be home Sunday and check it against source.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a sentence break was missing. Corrected.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Whose description of Saint-Gaudens is "Barber enemy"?
Vermeule describes elsewhere the conflicts between the two, though not in great detail, and the tone I felt justified it. However, I've added a more explicit reference the relevant text of which (available in Barber coinage) is " the 1891 competition turned the two against each other for the rest of their lives".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Production and aftermath
  • Do we need the verbatim 120-word report from the Public Ledger, rather than a short paraphrase?
No, but I don't think it detracts. Most people reading at this point will be interested in the detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the third para the word "similarly" seems inappropriate, since offers of $10,000 and $5,000 respectively do not seem all that similar.
  • "this was not done" → "the offer was not accepted"
  • Is any reason known for postponing the presentation to 3 March?
Not mentioned in source.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The commission was also plagued" – delete "also"
  • "The commission was tardy in giving the final order for the statute to Bartlett" – spot the superfluous "t"
  • Overlinking of Bowers (see last para of previous section)
I don't see this, the only consecutive cite to Bowers is in the paragraph beginning "The commission was tardy" and the first anchors a quote.
  • In the fifth para the date "July 4" is repeated several times in close succession (I know it's my birthday, but...) At last one of these should be tweaked.
  • "Buying a professionally graded and certified specimen should avoid this problem". This reads like advice to collectors, and does not sit well in an encyclopedia article.

Looking forward to your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I've gotten them all, except as noted. Thank you for a most thorough review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: The issues I've raised have been fully answered/amended. WP's coin hoard continues to grow. Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, and I've cleared up that one final point.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments

M. du Motier is at A-class review. Feel free. He's next up, absent unforeseen problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant an "a" or a "the". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary when defining someone in that way.
  • Alright, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Lafayette dollar is valued from several hundred dollars to tens of thousands, depending on condition. - perhaps indicate that this is current, and for collectors?
It's general enough that it isn't going to change anytime soon. I'll add a "by collectors". It's worth the same whoeever owns it.
  • rebound against - have repercussions for, perhaps? Rebound always makes me think of basketball — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The first Columbian half dollar had been sold for $10,000. - didn't you mention this coin already, but not link it?
  • 1983-S Los Angeles Olympics dollar - worth redlining?
I really haven't considered doing modern commemoratives yet, but it's an early one and got lots of coverage so it's a possibility. Will redlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I really don't have much to add. This is an excellent article, in a line of excellent articles, and my only issues are all minor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you most kindly for the review and support (I haven't thanked Brian yet as I haven't tracked down the source I need to check the quote he queried).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I've dealt with Crisco's points.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support – Only two passing quibbles: "DuVivier" or "Du Vivier" (we have both), and I boggle at "mementoes", but am perfectly willing to be told to keep my Limey nose out of American spelling. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. It continues to astonish me how Wehwalt manages to make the (to me) dry subject of numismatics so readable. All good stuff! Tim riley talk 15:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support, and the kind words. I think "momentoes" is the less common form, so I've changed it. Also, the "wrong" Du Vivier is in a quote so I've added a sic template. Many thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

2010 Sylvania 300[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 2010 running of the Sylvania 300, a NASCAR race at New Hampshire Motor Speedway. Nascar1996 originally brought this article to GA status on November 2010, almost four years ago. Shortly thereafter, the article was taken to peer review. The goal was for this to be taken to FAC; however, for whatever reason, that never happened. After doing some additional copyediting and addressing all of the peer review comments, I now believe the article is complete and meets the criteria. I'll also add that this is pretty much uncharted territory as there are no other NASCAR related articles currently at FA status. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 00:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey:, thank you for your comments. I am going to be quite busy over the next few days and am unsure how much I'll be able to accomplish, but I'll try to address these concerns by the end of the weekend at the latest. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, I may be around a bit tonight, but I cannot promise that I'll be able to anything before the weekend. But I promise I WILL get to it as soon as I can. Thanks! --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I think I've got everything taken care of with the exception of double-checking the quotes, which I will get to before the day is over. Thanks for your review; I have to head out for a bit now, but I'll finish addressing the concerns as soon as I can. Thanks, --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Please note that I know nothing about racing—I didn't even know what a stock car was before clicking through to find out. I'll assume the level of play-by-play detail is appropriate. Feel free to disagree with any of my comments or revert any of my copyedits.
  • Not necessary for FA, but you might want to consider alt text for the images
Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not a good idea to set image sizes, as it overrides user settings
Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not necessary, but you could add a {{Portal|Motorsport}}
Done Bentvfan54321 (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • was a [[NASCAR]] [[Sprint Cup Series]] [[stock car]] race: when links appear side-by-side they appear as a single link; can this be recast so that the three links appear separate? Also, you might want to link all of "stock car race", as the target is "stock car racing" rather than "stock car"
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • which ends the season: "ends" and not "ended"? As the rest of the sentence is in th epast tense, if this is really supposed to be "ends", perhaps it could be qualified (e.g. with "normally", "regularly", whatever) so it doesn't appear to be switching between tenses.
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • leading the most laps with 176: this doesn't appear to be in the body anywhere—it's only mentioned in an image caption. Also, I had no idea what it meant until I read that caption—maybe rewrite it here the way it is in the caption?
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • after suffering a post-race penalty: "suffering" almost makes it sound undeserved
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The third and final session lasted 60 minutes.: this is just excess verbiage when you could just say ", and the (third|last) 60 minutes."
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Forty-five drivers were entered for qualifying: is "were entered for qualifying" somehow different from simply "qualified"?
Tweaked. Is this better? Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The two drivers who failed to qualify for the race were Jeff Green and Johnny Sauter.: you might want to bump this back to the bit about the qualifying procedure
Not done. If you insist this is better wording, then I will fix; however, the drivers who failed to qualify are usually mentioned last in qualifying reports. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Once qualifying concluded Keselowski said, "I felt I got a shot at the pole before I qualified but you never really know. When I ran the lap I knew I gave up a little bit of time right in the middle of both corners but I had a plan going into it and stuck to it and it worked. I’m really proud of that lap.": I'm not sure what this quote adds to the article.
Again, if you insist, I'll remove it, but to me, it's the pole winner describing his lap, just as the winner would describe the race. While it may not be necessary, I don't think it hurts the article or falls under anything such as WP:TRIVIA. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Other Chase drivers were farther down the scoring list,: Well, obviously, unless there's a zeroeth position.
Removed. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Allmendinger fell to twenty-fifth after pit stops due to having run out of fuel on his way in: on his way in where?
The pits, Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Martin's car suffered a flat tire and the fourth caution was given: due to the flat tire?
Done. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Clint Bowyer appeared in victory lane: should this be "the victory lane"?
"Victory lane" is the term used for where the winner celebrates, receives the trophy, gives interviews, etc. Therefore, it stays as is.
  • how many cars on the lead lap: is this quote correct? If it is, you might want to add a {{sic}}
  • The biggest thing is going to be going to the race track: is "to the race track" in the original?
  • is going to have to have trouble: is "to have to have" in the original?
I'll get to the quotes later. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I double-checked, and all the quotes appear to be correct as stated in the sources. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In "Standings after the race", you might want to consider {{div col}} with "|colwidth=<something appropriate>" instead of {{col-start}} with a hard number of columns. Setting a colwidth allows the browser to choose whether to put the tables side-by-side or one after the other based on the size of the screen; using a hard number of columns will force the second column off-screen on small screens or screens that are taller than they are wide (say, on smartphones).
I apologize for what could be seen as a "dumb" question, but as my 7th grade teacher once said, "The only dumb question is the one you don't ask." How exactly do you do this? I've tried altering this and can't seem to come out with something that looks good. Do you mind doing the honors and fixing it yourself or at least giving me text that I can copy and paste into the article? --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried to handle it with this edit---I forgot to add MOS:DTAB formatting to those tables before, so I've done that too. For some reason the tables won't align---I've looked at the html produced and can't see why. Do they align in your browser? If it's an issue, just revert it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it still doesn't look right (the exact same thing happened when I was testing it out), but thanks for your efforts! I hope you don't mind, but since it seems to be an issue for both of us, I've reverted it back to where it was after your first edit seems to have gone through fine, though. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's unfortunate, but I don't see a fix, other than simply dropping the columns entirely (which is an option). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You might want to replace the semicolon syntax for pseudo-headers (e.g. ";Drivers' Championship standings") with bolding (i.e. "'''Drivers' Championship standings'''") or even actual headers (i.e. "===Drivers' Championship standings==="), as it would be more semantic—the semicolon syntax is meant to create a definition list, the bolding of which is incidental (somebody someday might decide it's better for definition list terms to appear in italics, in pink, or as a marquee). Using unsemantic markup can affect, for example, screenreaders, which may tell their users that a definition list is about to begin—and then it doesn't.
This is how it is done on almost every other article like this. I'd very strongly prefer to leave it this way for consistency's sake, but if you want it changed that badly, I'll give in. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Not to imply that you're "foolish" or anything, but I think this is "foolish consistency" territory. Using the semicolon for bolding is so persistent because it's easy, not because it's appropriate. Anyways, in this case the headers would be best as "|+" captions rather than what I suggested above. If you undo the div cols I added, I'd suggest retaining the captions at least.
  • One more thing here---the in the "Drivers' Championship standings" the "Points" are centred, but in the "Manufacturers' Championship standings" they are right aligned. Any reason for that? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the alignment issue, and hopefully the header issue as well, let me know if it still looks off to you. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

William Wurtenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I present William Wurtenburg, a very obscure 19th century American football coach. Born and raised in New York, going to Yale and playing on its football team appear to be the climax in Wurtenburg's life. He was a college football coach for six years, then spent the rest of his life giving people ear exams. Prior to my work on this article, the most comprehensive biography of Wurtenburg was a two-paragraph mention in the National Cyclopedia of American Biography. After a few months of hard work, I now believe this article will be the most comprehensive work ever made about this man. I received some help from Jweiss11 on fixing some of the mistakes I had made, and this now appears to be some of Wikipedia's best work (definitely its best on a random, obscure college football coach). - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 05:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments – I have to say that I'm disappointed nobody has given this a review, nearly a month into the FAC. When I went through the article, I found it to be well worth my time. There are a few issues detailed below, but I think this is solid overall and deserves more attention than it's getting.

  • Early life and college: Do either of the sources provided explain why Wurtenburg was ejected from the Princeton game? That is a point that caught my interest, and it may explain why Barbour replaced him.
  • Unfortunately not. The New York Times source is citing the fact that Barbour was the replacement quarterback, while Whitney (1891), which cites his ejection, simply states "[...] when Wurtenburg was disqualified in the Yale-Princeton game".
  • 1890s: Whether the Quakers' name is Penn or Pennsylvania should be made consistent throughout.
  • Done. Changed the one Pennsylvania to "Penn".
  • Who was Navy's third rival in 1894? I see Penn and Penn State, with no Army game, and the lead says they played three rivalry games that year.
  • The third is Navy's "friendly rival" Georgetown. Added that to the article.
  • In the bibliography, the last book citation has a nasty red error message. Not sure why, but the year range could be the cause. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think its probably due to both the date range and the c. Considering the range is all that is available, I don't know what to do with this.
  • You could try removing the circa and just leaving the date range, which would be accurate in a sense since he wrote the content in different years. I don't know offhand if that would fix it, but the idea may be worth a shot. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, I removed the circa and it appears to have fixed the problem. Thanks for following up. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments, I believe I have dealt with them to the best of my ability. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 02:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – All of my comments are now resolved and I'm satisfied that the article meets the FA criteria. Again, I hope other reviewers decide to spend some time with this one; I'd hate to see the FAC be archived due to a lack of reviews. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Lightning (Final Fantasy)[edit]

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This article concerns Lightning, a fictional character in the Final Fantasy series and the central character of the Final Fantasy XIII games, produced and published by Square Enix. Most references are both working and archived (exceptions are sites that won't allow archiving or won't archive properly: Square Enix-related pages, IGN, Complex), while those who had either flaky or not working anymore are archived and the archive pages work. The article was given GA status in October 2013, and was made part of the Final Fantasy XIII Good Topic in July of this year. The article has undergone a copyedit and its peer review has been archived. I feel that it is of sufficient quality to become a Featured Article. ProtoDrake (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Prose review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

  • Strong support: An excellent article. I find most Wikipedia pages on fictional characters very boring, but this one is different: all meaningful, interesting content; no cruft. The prose quality—my main complaint—is now easily 1a-level. You've hit it out of the park with this article, ProtoDrake. Before I get out of your hair, I should mention that some of my final prose tweaks may have misrepresented the sources. Feel free to correct any mistakes I made. Hope the rest of the FAC goes smoothly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Image review - Passed
  • File:Lightning CG.png - Fair Use of the character in question; I'd prefer if the source was more specific as to where the image was gotten from, rather than just the copyright holder
  • File:Lightning XIII-2 screenshot.png - Fair Use of the character in her second appearance; the resolution is a little high (Per WP:IMAGERES, shoot for width x height <= 100,000- right now you're at ~140,000, so you'll want something closer to 420x236 than 500x281). I'd like the purpose of use to be a bit longer, too; right now it's mainly "to show that Lightning looked different in the second game". Talk about what visual aspects changed that necessitate another image to show them.
  • File:Lightning LR screenshot.png - Fair Use of the character in her third appearance; same issues as the XIII-2 image.
--PresN 22:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Done my best with all three. If the source for the main infobox image is not adequate, that can be sorted, I think. Image resize was easy enough, expanding the fair use was a bit more challenging. I also added sources for the other two images. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, now passed. --PresN 23:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar[edit]

Sorry for coming to this late. I think that all of the prose issues have already been addressed as reading through most of the article concludes no issues. I'll support this transition from GA to FA as the prose is flawless. However there was only one thing that confused me: Jaguar 12:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

  • "She was depicted as having transcended her human limits, making it "kind of hard to approach her" as a person." - why does this make it hard to approach her and where did the quote come from?
Done my best with that. I think, given the nature of the question that statement was part of an answer to, that they meant in approaching her depiction and characterization rather than physically approaching her. I've adjusted it accordingly. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Nothing major.

  • Why are "fictional character" and "protagonist" linked?
  • "featuring as a resident" - strange wording
  • "She was also criticized for her relative absence in XIII-2." - use of "also" (which I'm surprised JimmyBlackwing didn't pick out) implies that the "mixed" reception attributed to her Cloud similarities previously was actually mostly negative.
  • " Famitsu, Square Enix and other organizations."/"Hope, Sazh Katzroy and Oerba Dia Vanille"/"strong, beautiful, and"/"a chibi figure in Final Fantasy in Itadaki Street Mobile,[79] and a character card"/etc. - I don't really care whether you include the Oxford comma or not, but keep it consistent.
  • "whose two factions " - do they have names? (I've played very little of Final Fantasy XIII.)
  • "like a female version of Cloud" - "Strife" is never used in the body text; consider including it here in brackets

Tezero (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

All sorted as best as I could. Thanks for catching those Oxford comma mistakes. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks great, especially with JB's large-scale prose spitshining. We haven't had a VG character FA in quite some time (although Lightning may not be alone in the fall 2014 crew), and this article deserves to break this sorrowful period of stagnation. Tezero (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Dead links
  • Explanatory notes should still have the references attached, particularly when they include direct quotes
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when in references
  • Fn11: publication name should be italicized. Same with FN89
  • Be consistent in when you include publisher locations
  • External link appears to fail WP:EL. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria:; I've fixed the dead links (also did some archiving for the Square Enix Store links), publisher locations, and italics. I think I've fixed the wikilinking, apart from the quotes: another editor recommended I not use links within those references, but it can easily be altered. I also deleted the external link as, as the Wikipedia article is now, the Wikia page doesn't seem the best thing to link to. But I don't know how to fix the notes. How do I attach the references to the notes? I tried putting the citation inside the note and they didn't display. How can I solve this problem? Also, is there anything in the article I haven't caught? I am still learning and am always willing to accept help. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed it for you; you can't nest references directly, but if you use the {{efn}}/{{notelist}} templates, you can. --PresN 19:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That should be all the problems fixed, unless I missed something. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikilinking isn't the same as external linking - you've now got some publication titles linked externally, some linked internally, and some not linked at all, and it isn't consistent (for example, sometimes Famitsu is linked and other times not). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I've fixed the external links and the Famitsu links, I think. But I can't link all of them sites used in references without leaving red links. Should I just remove the links outright? --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
If no article exists about the site, it's fine not to link it - this point is mostly concerned with consistency regarding linking of the same publication (ie. Famitsu should be either always linked or always not linked). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria I've done a spotcheck, and it seems to be alright, with the only detections being deliberate quotes or repeats of the names of games. There is a url ( that's at 82.4% violation, but it isn't part of the article. I don't understand. Other than that, I've gone through the references again and.... I think the rest of the issues have been sorted. I really, really hope this can be finished successfully. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, please could you give me a verdict some time, or tell me what else needs doing? I'm getting very nervous about this article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey ProtoDrake, source review is done, you're waiting for the delegates to either pass the article or tell you what else it needs to pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Spokane, Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): G755648 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about...Spokane, Washington, a medium-sized city in eastern Washington. This former railroad, mining, and timber town is Washington's second largest city and is the county seat of Spokane County as well as the metropolitan center of the Inland Northwest region. I hope you enjoy reading and learning about Spokane! G755648 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose, suggest quick withdrawal—The nominator is not a major contributor and has made less than ten edits on Wikipedia, enough to assume that he is not familiar with the FA criteria and how the entire process works.--Retrohead (talk) 08:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I have edited this article and Wikipedia for years as an IP. Anyway, I do hope you come around, reconsider, and critique the article. That would be very helpful and I would like your opinion. I did read and was aware of the criteria before I nominated it. I know your concern is over this passage: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination."
I dont think you should worry though. I think that is just a recommendation. I am familiar with the topic, editing, and the criteria that has to be met. I dont think that can apply to this case anyway because it doesnt look like there are any significant named Users to inform before I nominated it. I hope you and other users can be open-minded and less distracted by how recent the nominators account was created and judge it by the content of the article. A lot of people have worked hard on it and it shows. I believe if it doesnt meet the criteria that we can easily work it out so that it does. Thank youG755648 (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - hmm, read this through while at the gym earlier tonight on my smartphone. I think it is pretty good comprehensiveness- and balance-wise (though I concede I don't know the city well enough to stake my life on that), but the prose needs some tightening. I will try and find and either fix straightforward stuff or list queries below, though sometimes if it is this loose it might need more than one extra set of eyes. Anyway..if you know the subject and can help with factual fixes or clarifications this might be a goer.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The word "city" is mentioned four times in the first para of lead. Also, the fourth para should be merged into first para as content is similar - will also allow removal of repeated fact that it is the second largest city in Washington.
Done Good idea. It was tricky, but I like it better now.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
David Thompson explored the Spokane area and began European settlement - the "and began European Settlement" is redundant - repeated in next sentence. I was going to remove it but left it to you to figure how to rephrase the sentence.
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The last para of American settlement section is a bit laboured with the three sentences on railroads - surely this can be streamlined?
Done Combined the first two sentences and references which are very similar. Think the last one should stand alone since its a significant fact and has 3 references that we dont want to get jumbled up with the others.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
In the new century, Spokane is still reinventing itself to a more service-oriented economy in the face of a less prominent manufacturing sector - hmm, needs rephrasing, why not just "promoting" or "developing" a "more service-oriented economy"....?
I wouldnt mind that. I do like it the way it is currently worded with 'reinventing' though because I think it conveys more of a sense and reality that Spokane's transition hasnt been easy and it's struggling from losses. The recession that the last paragraph in the 20th century section was talking about saw the shutting down of the 2 aluminum plants from WWII and the loss of many jobs in the manufacturing sector (which isnt mentioned). They briefly mention the loss of those jobs a HistoryLink article, I think Ill put it in there. Let me know what you think.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Right, I've done this so far to trim some flab off the writing. There is more - look for repeated words in sentences or adjacent clauses. I have to sleep now - back later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I never noticed the redundancy, Ill keep an eye out for some more parts like the ones you mentioned. Right now Ive been working on the refs, looking for dead links and page migrations. Thank you for your help!G755648 (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
You'll get better at it - one of the best things I've read since editing here is User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. Note that I don't mean make it too dry, there is a fine balance here.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
See, here are some more examples. The danger is that if an article is really flabby, I will stop seeing them after a while as I become used to the article. Still, I think we are making progress and will get some other folks to review the prose when I am done. I think the prose is tighter further down the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you do get used to it after a while lol. Thanks for bringing your friends in to help, the more the merrier.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Much of Spokane's history is reflected in its large variety of neighborhoods and districts. - see, I'd say this is true of any city and that nothing is lost by this sentence's removal - let the facts of the following sentences speak for themselves.
Done::: Removed intro sentence.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Spokane experiences a four-season climate,... - I'd remove this as redundant in the culture section
DoneG755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
In the fires' aftermath, 32 blocks of Spokane's downtown were destroyed and one person was killed - err, it was the fire, not its aftermath, which did these things.....
A more active way to see natural sites in the Spokane area include travelling the Spokane River Centennial Trail, which features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails.... - sounds a bit like a tourism brochure. Can trim to "The Spokane River Centennial Trail features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails....."
FixedG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Spokane is served by a variety of print media. - pointless sentence. Would be true of all but the smallest towns. suggest removal
DoneG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Crime rates in Spokane can vary greatly and differ depending on neighborhood. - true of just about all cities. what would be more notable is a homogeneous city. suggest removal
DoneG755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Hostilities between the natives ceased and this opened the inter-mountain valley of the Pacific Northwest to the safe settlement of white people - "between" or "against" the natives?
Done. against..G755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Property crime is of particular concern in Spokane - let fact speak for themselves...I'd remove it.
Done.G755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In regard to the most common property crime in the nation, auto theft, Spokane had the fourth highest rate in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011 - why not just, "Spokane had the fourth highest rate of auto theft in the U.S. in 2010 and 2011"
Done. Good questionG755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Local and regional law enforcement agencies continually try new strategies, techniques, and technologies to address this issue. - I'd remove - sure this is going on in every city in the world about all sorts of crime....
Done.G755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The Spokane area offers an abundance of outdoor activities that can be enjoyed in outlying natural areas that may cater to a variety of interests. - I'd remove this - sounds like a tourism brochure. Let following sentences speak for themselves. No meaning is lost by this sentence's removal.
Done. Thanks, Cas!G755648 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The various neighborhoods and districts of Spokane contain a patchwork of architectural styles and landmarks, - I'd truncate this to "The various neighborhoods of Spokane contain a patchwork of architectural styles,..." - otherwise sounds laboured....
DoneG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "cutting edge".....I'd change. Bit....hmmm.......I hate to use the term "unencyclopedic" but I reckon it is apt here.
Done Good point. I put "state of the art" in its place. G755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Another hotel with the intention of bringing convention business to Spokane is the new 721-room convention hotel across from the INB Performing Arts Center. - jumps 100 years in two sentences? This seems weird coming after the sentence with 1914 in it...
Done Never thought about that, it is a bit weird. That was included because Dr. Blofeld wanted some info on hotels, and that one will be by far the largest in town once opened. It was also a nice transition since they had the same intentions and the new hotel is owned by the same developer that saved the Davenport. I have taken it out for now since I think a mention of the Davenport as the most notable and well known hotel will suffice for now. If Blofeld has concerns, we can always add it back. If we do add it back, Ill try to make it less weirdG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Spokane has a vibrant art scene... - I'd chop this out. I suspect there are many many cities that'd say this....just let the sentences speak for themselves
DoneG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Spokane is large enough to have many amenities of a larger city, but small enough to support annual events and traditions with a small town atmosphere. - ditto.....
DoneG755648 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Provisional impression - within striking distance I think. The sourcing looks ok and the article strikes me as comprehensive and balanced. I found quite a bit of fluff to trim in the prose and it's looking better, and I can't see any clangers outstanding. However I am cautious as once I read through a few times I too start missing things, so will ping another prose-analyser to take a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much for helping out Cas Liber! You have a tremendous eye for detail and have done a great deal to clean up this article and make it better. :)G755648 (talk) 01:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I think we're over the line now and prose is tighter...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again Casliber for your support and all youve done to help and make this article better.G755648 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Crime rates- the figures in the table are derived from an FBI table of total crimes, not crimes per 100,000 as shown, e.g. 1,369 violent crimes in a population of 212,163= 645 per 100,000. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I see what youre talking about, but Im at a loss on how to fix it. If I could I would just take that note out but it looks like its embedded in the template. Is there something we can do to the template? I could change the source to the state UCR data for crime rates per 100,000, which is cited in the prose, but I would prefer not to since that template and source is sort of standardized on many city articles with a Crime section, including the Tulsa, Oklahoma and Hillsboro, Oregon featured articles which have the same issue. Let me know what you think is bestG755648 (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Same here- I don't know. It does seem a template problem. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 05:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I hope someone who can help finds out about that and updates it. Nice job noticing it.G755648 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Per WP:ALT, alt text and captions shouldn't be the same
  • File:Riverfront_Park_Carousel.JPG: don't think this would be covered by freedom of panorama in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Done Changed the alt so it isnt the same as any of the captions. Tell me if it still needs work or if I missed one. Took out the carousel pic.G755648 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments – I'll read properly over the next day or so, but meanwhile two quick points on spelling: I've never seen "deaconess" with a double "n" (perhaps a UK-v-US thing) and "orthopaedic" rather than "orthopedic" looks more like BrEng than AmEng to me. Quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. More from me shortly. Tim riley talk 20:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Done You are absolutely right about the spelling of 'Deaconess', it is supposed to have only one 'n' and if you find one with two, it is a mistake and feel free to take it out; I took out the one instance I found in there. I dont know about BrEng vs AmEng on this, but the Shriners website uses "orthopaedic" so I just went with it. I do think "orthopedic" is more common and looks less of a mouthful though so Im going to change that too. Thanks for reading!G755648 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The nominator has gently reminded me that I have not honoured my undertaking to look in again. I hereby promise faithfully to re-read the article and comment further here in the next day or two. Tim riley talk 14:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Good to have you Tim! Take your time and thank you!!G755648 (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I was asked to comment on the prose, and I am happy to say I think it meets the FA criterion 1a – I find the text engaging, clear and well put together – in short, a pleasure to read. As to the content I defer to Dr. Blofeld's wide expertise, but noting the nominator's reply to Dr. B's comments I incline to provisional support. A few points for the nominator to consider:
  • Hyphenation: I am no expert, but I see some phrases that I think could do with a hyphen, and I suggest you ask User:Chris the speller to look in: he has helped me greatly and often with hyphenation and countless other fixes.
Done. The kind sir gave it a nice look over.
  • Name of nation: "United States" is used 28 times and "U.S." 21 times. As far as I can see, as a European outsider, the preferred form seems to be "U.S.", and so perhaps some or all incidences of the two-word version might be trimmed to initials.
Done.G755648 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:OVERLINK: Wikipedia's rules are clear: a maximum of two links from any article to another: one link from the lead, and one from the main text. You have quite a few triplicated and quadrupled links. There is an invaluable and simple tool here that will help you fix this, and I'd say it definitely must be fixed before the article is judged fit for promotion to FA.
That's all from me pro tem but I shall watch the review and will contribute further if wanted. Tim riley talk 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and support Tim. It looks like I will definitely be doing a lot of de-linking before this nomination is wrapped up to combat the sea of blue and Ill change as many of those 'United States' instances as I can. Thanks again!:)G755648 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments This is my first stab at a review, so please be patient. In reviewing the lead, I think you might want to take the historical information from the last two paragraphs and combine them into one, and put the resources and notable institutions into its own paragraph at the end. Currently it seems a little disjointed to see the history start and move on to a new topic only to return later.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 19:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed Good point. I shuffled some sentences around and now all the history comes before the other facts about its name and nickname and colleges. Hope you like itG755648 (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Pretty good article but I can't support an article which has such a poor coverage of architecture and landmarks. Cityscape should contain the bulk of the architecture and notable landmarks and be a separate section. It should be one of the longest sections in the article, yet it missing. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats a good idea, I will start working on this as soon as possible. However, I never thought to put that in there partly because I dont recall seeing many FAs with a section dedicating a whole lot to landmarks and architecture, could you show me some examples I can use as a model?? I know the Tulsa article talks a fair amount about it but I havent seen a whole lot of others.
Information about many of Spokane's landmarks are sort of dispersed throughout the article but most of it is in the Neighborhoods section, it should be very easy to bring this info all together and supplement that with some new content and put them into a nice section. Spokane has plenty to talk about on the matter and I look forward to making this section. A lot of the downtown is Romanesque Revival style architecture and a lot those buildings are Spokane landmarks. Im already brainstorming some ideas. I can also talk about Kirtland Cutter, an architect who started practicing in the city and holds the majority of his famous works as well. Again, if you could give me some examples of what youre looking for that would address the issue, that would be very helpful. Thank you!G755648 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
See Copenhagen for an example. Now, naturally I wouldn't expect a similar coverage for Spokane, Copenhagen being a capital city, but I would like to see a sizable section covering the most prominent buildings in the city and coverage of the more notable registry places. I'd add a sizable Architecture sub section to the Cityscape section I've now created. You could discuss the Romanesque architecture downtown, when certain buildings were built and their architects. Then mention a few of the most notable mansions/houses in the area etc. In fact a separate article Landmarks of Spokane, Washington covering it in detail and a condensed summary in the main would be good. When wanting to learn about cities for me personally having quick access to the most notable features of a city architecturally is one of the main things I look for. I think having a solid section on Landmarks discussing most of them in one section instead of throughout the article is more convenient for those looking for a concise summary of the most notable buildings and features. There's nothing wrong with mentioning things like theatres and museums in Culture but I'd think the bulk of the main admin buildings, prominent hotels/houses etc and a general overview of architecture should go in a chunky section itself.
My first observation aside from the architecture is that the lede is poorly balanced and focused and tells me little actually about the city; it wouldn't even meet GA standards. Cut out all the info about population in the wider county, it's not relevant. You only really need to say something like "As of 2014 the city had a population of xxx with xxx in the wider metropolitan area" in one sentence, not a whole paragraph! Cut back a lot on the history and etymology and try to make sure something from each section of the article is mentioned in the lede. The reader will want an overview of the contents of the article, so you need to mention some of the landmarks, top sports teams etc. My feeling though is that this needs way too much polishing and improvement to really be a viable candidate right now. I'd withdraw it and get some experienced editors to look and it and try to improve it further and then nominate when we're all positive about it. I think it would benefit from some copyediting and a general polish which would result from several pairs of eyes reading and editing it. I may give this a full look later in the week and help you out.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I do like the idea of an architecture and landmarks section, Im surprised you dont see a section like that more often. Im glad that you pointed that out to me because that is one of the most interesting parts of any city or town that I like to know about too if I were to visit, knowing what the sites are important, even if its not a tourist hotspot. Ive made good progress on the section that is dedicated to landmarks and architecture and Im going to more or less talk about the architecture of notable neighborhoods in Spokane with emphasis on the downtown core, which is obviously the most relevant as well as talking identifying of the landmarks in other neighborhoods that stand out and are worth a mention. Also, I have created a paragraph that tells of the types of architecture that is most commonplace and listing some of the notable buildings that are of a particular style etc. I think I will briefly delve into city layout and its grid system, mention of the citys extensive skywalk network, and Spokane's very good record in saving and preserving historic buildings and its architectural heritage. I have dedicated a paragraph about Spokane's only real architect of note, Kirtland Cutter, and I talk about how he started out in architecture, rose to prominence, and the buildings hes done in town. I will put it in the article when Ive made it into a somewhat coherent piece, I will be trying to dedicate as much time as I can to get this done this week.
I will chop down the lead a bit, I do think it can be more lean without taking anything away. We can experiment with the Lead, its just a summary so nothing will be lost by doing some cutting. That is something easy to fix and we just need to find the right balance. As for the copyediting, I been working quite a bit on that lately as well some other reviewers here, I think we have cleaned it up real nice. If more copyediting is needed, this is the best place for it. I think that working on copyediting is the most commonplace issue here at the FACs and that is mainly what were doing here, sprucing up the article and trying to put the finishing touches on it so it can be brought up to spec. That being said, I welcome any help I can get and Im happy youre being proactive about it and going to take a look into it yourself. Thanks so much for reading!G755648 (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks pretty much what I was looking for, good job. Perhaps a few sentences on hotels and restaurants/cafes at the end of other notable landmarks would be good too. I have visited the city a while back and I must admit that the "Spokane's crime rate is also higher than average in both violent and property crime, having a rate higher than 98% of communities in the United States" really felt like it at the time, although walking through parts of NYC felt about the same. Walking through the downtown at dusk past gangs hanging out on the corners and the night in the motel was probably the most threatened I've ever felt in terms of personal safety and remember putting a heavy chair up against the door! The park I remember was quite pleasant though. Seems as Tim doesn't see any major issues with the prose perhaps it's best to keep this running then, but I can see some areas needing sourcing improvement. I've already added two sources. I'll try to give it my full attention tomorrow. I really need to take a careful look and read each aspect of it before I'm ready to change to support. Can you try to balance out the lede as I suggested in the meantime, I'm surprised Tim didn't pick up on that. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats an unfortunate experience at the motel and Im sorry to hear it. Good thing you didnt die, that would have sucked. The crime is supposed to be getting better, we can only hope. In the mean time, I suggest packing an Ak 47 for your next trip to Spokane lol.
Ive put off doing the Lead to work on the Cityscape section, Ive started working on that now, let me know what you think of it in the coming days. I will add a section about Cutter's Davenport Hotel, its been called "Spokane's livingroom" and Ill mention the convention hotel thats being constructed too right now. Ill try to think of a at least one other talking point to put in there to make it complete. Thanks for the work youve put in on the article. Im liking your changes. I do think the 'Walkability' section looks a bit oddly placed under the Dams section, but Ill get used to it I guess. Thanks again!G755648 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed on the walkability, but I didn't think it belonged where you put it so moved it during the edit. I'd be tempted to remove it all, or in passing just mention it somewhere. Hopefully I can take a good look at this over the next few days.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you replace and some of the other sources in the history section to that site which appear to be essays and replace with some more solid primary book sources where possiblr? Just look in google books, should turn up plenty of replacements like this. I know the historylink site says "with a few noted exceptions, all essays and features on this site are original works prepared exclusively for by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts. All essays and features are vetted by professional staff" but I think it would look better with a wider range of sources from books, like you've done more research. They just look more solid as sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I have either added a book source to accompany a HL cite or replaced it completely with a book about 4 or 5 times throughout the article. The vast majority of the historylink cites are at the end of 20th century and 21st century sections and parts of the history section that deal with a very narrow topic (The Great Fire, Hillyard). G755648 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you research this using google books? I think in quite a few places the sourcing could be strengthened and replace with books, there's quite a few places I can see where third-party reliable books etc could replace web based primary sources. Can you try to strengthen the sourcing using google books? I can help you with that if you like.
  • The Sports I think is one of the weakest and tells me little about sports in the city. I'm aware that several other American cities have tables like this but I think it would be best written in prose and you elaborate on some of them. When were they founded? What recent successes etc have they had? I'd make it look like more like the Education section and it'll look much better for it without the table and more information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Done.G755648 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Parks and recreation is way too long, needs to be trimmed by roughly 50%. If you don't want to lose any material consider creating a main article Parks and recreation in Spokane, Washington and chop it right down.
Fixed I think Chopped some off. let me know if its not enoughG755648 (talk) 05:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The close proximity of the hospitals, doctors' offices, and specialized clinics scattered around this area form what is known as the "Medical District" of Spokane." -citation needed, looks like OR.
Done.G755648 (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I think with a fair bit of polishing work and sourcing and content reinforcement this has the potential to pass. The basic material is there but it still needs a copyedit and that something extra to improve flow and avoid repetition in parts and improve the general quality.I've made a good start this evening, it's shaping up. If you're editing it in the meantime can you try to begin strengthening the sourcing to the best of your ability with quality book sources and replace a lot of those web sources, cut parks down and begin writing a nice section on sports without that ugly table? You can save time by pasting google book url into here. I'll resume tomorrow. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Im liking what youve done and how its turning out. I like how you split up the Housing and the public buildings section, nice. I might fiddle with the Lead a little bit, if you have concerns, just let me know.
I absolutely share your view on book sources vs web sources and I like traditional book sources better. Im happy to see this article uses a lot of books throughout, and uses more than most featured articles about cities, the biblio lists 13 books now with the addition of that Ware book you just put in there. Compare that to 2 on the Providence, Rhode Island FA, 1 that I see cited in the Erie, Pennsylvania FA, and a whopping 0 on the Tulsa FA. But, even so, I did try to find resources that I could use to replace some of them, but came up empty handed. The majority of the History section uses books, and the ones that dont are sections that are narrow in scope or use the Thumbnail article for the more recent events in the 21st century section. Thats the beauty of HistoryLink there, filling in the spaces between the books. That being said, HistoryLink is a really good resource on a broad range of Washington state-related topics and a wealth of information, its a state government supported Washington state encyclopedia and its been put to good use on this article as well as the Seattle FA article too. Since HistorLink is a solid source, this seems sort of like a cosmetic issue, especially since the encyclopedia lists all of their sources for each essay at the bottom. I do have to say that I like the idea of keeping at least one instance of most of the articles on there so the reader has the option to learn more if they wish to. We want the readers to learn as much as they want and I dont think it hurts to keep one in there so they can have access to it. I think that strikes a nice balance.
I didnt do most of the history section, Ill see what books I can find as some alternatives. I only added in recent years editing irregularly as an nonstatic IP the Kensel sources. and I will see what I can do to get some more book sources to replace the HLs if I can. I own the Stratton book, Ill see what I can scrounge up and yes, feel free to help if you can :).
I see what you mean about the Parks and Rec section and the Sports section. Ill start working on those real soon. I think the Parks section goes into too much detail, and I think I can cut it back a good deal. Ill take your advice and ditch the table, its not important and if someone wanted to know about it, they will take the time to scan the section for what they want. Its a work in progress but it looks like its getting better! Thank you again.G755648 (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Definitely much improved thanks to our combined efforts! The balance now I think is perfect. Let me give this my full attention again on Monday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have you back! look forward to working on this with you again. Thank you for your continued interest and your contributions, they are very much appreciated.G755648 (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Crisco comments[edit]
  • The local economy has traditionally been based on natural resources, being a center for mining, timber, and agriculture; however, the city's economy has diversified. - should have a time frame
Fixed Put a date on when the diversification seemed to have happened, by the 1980s according to Schmeltzer.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Great Fire of 1889 - worth a redlink?
Done I think soG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The first humans to live in the Spokane area arrived between 12,000 to 8,000 years ago and were hunter-gatherer societies that lived off the plentiful game in the area. - A summarized version of this would have been really useful in the lead, rather than keep a Euro-centric view
DoneI like that ideaG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the Spokane tribe's (or other Native American tribes') view of Wright and the battles?
I will see what I can find about this...G755648 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The first American settlers in the present-day city" - perhaps "The first American settlers in what is now Spokane"
DoneG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Make sure that terms are linked on first mention, and not otherwise.
Is this a MoS rule? Since we can only use one link due to the MoS, its important to use it where people would most expect to see it I think, so Ive been linking some of the links in the section that talks most about the subject matter. I didnt want to assume that people will read each section sequentially. Sometimes people only want to read a certain section. For instance, we mention Kirtland Cutter in the History section, but the link to his article is in the Architecture section, where we talk about him at length and where most people will probably gain enough interest to jump into his article. Let me know what you think about thatG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • and 36,848 in 1900 with the arrival of the railroads. - Didn't the NPR reach Spokane in 1881?
Yeah it did, but it was followed by the Union Pacific, Great Northern, and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific railroads too.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • So "arrival of the railroads" can't be correct, as there was at least railroad there for several years (and another followed before 1900, right?)
Done Ah, I see what you mean, thats right. We are going to have to say 'the arrival of additional railroads' or something. Ill work on the continuity issue with the jumping around later.G755648 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Inland Empire - This doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic term
The "Inland Empire" isnt a contrived term, it is what the region centered around Spokane was commonly called and the term still isnt too uncommon today. Youre more likely to hear Inland Northwest though. The article defines this term in the Topography section. The term is used in the source material and I think using period terms brings the history more to life and makes for more interesting reading. Let me know if using it is a problemG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the only other time you use this term beforehand, it is in quotes. Losing the quotes gives a different impression. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed I thinkSo, youre saying that since its been defined already I can lose the quotes? If so, Ill change it to ..."capital" of the Inland EmpireG755648 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • a dramatic building boom - Dramatic feels a little weasely and POV. "boom" is already giving the same impressions.
  • Spokane's growth continued unabated until August 4, 1889, - why are we jumping around, from 1900 to 1910 to 1889 to...?
Done Relocated those sentences to a place that makes more sense.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • the West - might want to be more explicit, for non-American readership
Done Good ideaG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we get it, the rates were really high. We shouldn't push a POV with so many adjectives.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed I think I took one out- if youre talking about the rail freight rates. I see what you mean, it is a significant point though. According to what Ive read, it really hurt the economy for decades.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • After decades of stagnation and slow growth, Spokane businessmen formed Spokane Unlimited, an organization that sought to revitalize downtown Spokane. - When?
FixedStratton doesnt list a specific date for the formation of Spokane Unlimited, the book says it happened in the 'early 60s' so I put that down to be faithful to the source.G755648 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • becoming the smallest city yet to host a World's Fair - as of?
FixedSentence and language was a bit confusing. It was the smallest city when it hosted the Fair in 1974, thats what the sentence is supposed to get across. As for being the smallest city today to host a Worlds Fair...Spokane isnt the smallest anymore.G755648 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The success seen in the late 1970s and early 1980s once again was interrupted by another U.S. recession, in which silver, timber, and farm prices dropped. - again, when?
Im not quite sure what I can do on this one and I have to say I dont have the book with me. But, I personally thought that 'late 1970s and early 1980s' was pretty specific (in my mind this would narrow it down to 1977-1983ish- a 6 year period)...the whole US suffered from that recession in the late 1970s, would you like me to put the dates the slump occurred nationally? I think it would probably simply amount to us explicitly saying what most of us are probably already thinking though...that it occurred from 1977-1983, which would be the late 1970s and early 1980s... Let me know what you think is best for the article and Ill see what I can doG755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not worried about that part of the sentence, but rather the recession which interrupted the growth. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Whoops, I got a bit confused. Again, I dont have the book in front of me, but the recession that is mentioned would be the Early 1980s recession that apparently started in July of 1981, I will put that date in the sentence.G755648 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Last several paragraphs of #History gets pretty POV (sounds like promotional copy). This is particularly true of the 21st century section — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I did find one thing that stuck out, and that I took out ...there is an air of optimism for the city's future- I can see how you might think that is promotional, but Im not seeing any others sentences that would be promotional too much of a concern, could you show me an example of what you are seeing and why you think its promotional?
What I see are examples of this 'downtown rebirth' that the article talks about and that has been happening since 1999. The 21st century section is about what has been happening over the last 15 years, pretty recent history, and I (and HistoryLink, the source for most of this section) would say reversing the deteriorating downtown is the most notable thing to talk about in Spokane today. This downtown renewal is still happening and relevant today, with the current building of a 721-room convention hotel and yet another expansion of the convention center. We can only wait and see what the events of today will have on the overarching history of Spokane, but for now, we can only report what we see.G755648 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sentences such as "Although a tough period, Spokane's economy had begun to benefit from economic diversification; being the home to growing companies such as Key Tronic and having research, marketing, and assembly plants for other technology companies helped lessen Spokane's dependency on natural resources." strike me as very marketese, for lack of a better term (like what I'd see from a commercial press release). Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive, but I'm not too sure this and similar wordings are encyclopedic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
OH, I thought you were talking about the 21st century section.
Although Im having a hard time seeing the problem, Ill see what I can do to try and fix it. It might be a matter of picking the right words, but the section doesnt use any POV and opinion describing words that are typical of things that would bring up promotional and POV flags to me. I thought that section was actually gloomy if anything (with the exception of the one sentence you brought up about diversification that you pointed out), its talking about losing family wage jobs and further down talks about scarcity of high-paying jobs, pockets of poverty, areas of high crime, and a sense of doubt regarding aspects of city government. Strikes me as very honest and NPOV for the most part.
Fixed I thinkChanged sentence to: Although this was a tough period, Spokane's economy had started to benefit from some measure of economic diversification; growing companies such as Key Tronic and other research, marketing, and assembly plants for other technology companies helped lessen Spokane's dependency on natural resources.

Thank you for reading and helping out!G755648 (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

G755648 I think though that the 20th century to present has way too much on economy and general development. I think it would look better with reinforcement in the history with some actual events. Perhaps you could get hold of some books like "Early Spokane". A great place to start would be the timeline here. Try to cover as much of it as you can. I'll resume tomorrow with that if you don't make a start on it. The history section for me is the weakest now. If we can try to report more events and improve the balance from just economic development we should get there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we can do a bit better on that. Ill see what else I can think of in the the coming week or so. It would make it seem a bit less mechanical and all business. The economic history is comprehensive and well covered and that is the meat and potatoes of any history section. With any settlement, history and economy go hand in hand and that is what all the books focus on so it can be tougher to find those nice little side notes that happen along the way, but Ill try to remember to look through some stuff and see if I can find something worth noting. I think you've done a good deal of addressing the issue so far. If there is any event in particular that you think is worth mentioning, let me know and Ill make a write something up about it. For the time though, I am working on the recommendations in the list above. Thanks again and glad to have ya back.G755648 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • More coming. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 47.39 North latitude and 117.25 West longitude - Is this necessary in-text? We've got templates for putting this information at the top of the article and in the infobox. If we do keep this in-text, can we lose the latitude and longitude? It's already clear from the degrees North construction.
Done Yeah, Id agree, we can lose it.G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The lowest elevation in the city of Spokane is the northernmost point of the Spokane River within city limits (in Riverside State Park) at 1,608 feet (490 m); the highest elevation is on the northeast side, near the community of Hillyard (though closer to Beacon Hill and the North Hill Reservoir) at 2,591 feet (790 m). - I think this should be with the other information about the elevation
Done Moved the sentence so it is right after the sentence that lists the elevation of the city.G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
DoneDelinked ecoregion, basaltic, foothills and steppe..G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"winningest"? Is the Sports section a SEAOFBLUE too?G755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we need all this information on Spokane county?
DoneGood point, TMI. Im getting rid of the info about the nearby townsG755648 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Duplicate links: Oregon, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Coeur d'Alene, Palouse, Key Tronic, Expo '74, Riverside State Park, Spokane Falls, Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park, Mukogawa Women's University, Mead, Spokane Valley,
Im having a hard time trying to find some of these duplicates. Tim told me about some script to use, but I dont know how to use it and I didnt want to mess anything up. If you find a duplicate feel free to remove it and do what you want.G755648 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • a full-power radio station that provides its service area with progressive perspectives, providing programming to diverse communities and unserved or under-served groups. - Another very POV-y sentence (marketese)
FixedGood catchG755648 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • state and county government documents or state- and county-government documents?
FixedIm not sure what the difference is so Ill just put "government documents"G755648 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Spokane County Library District - why no further information, if you mention it?
ReasonMentioned so you know its there and it exists. Only mentioned because the Spokane County libraries are all outside the city itself and I didnt want to diverge from the main topic. I think in depth coverage of the county libraries should be mentioned in the side articles.G755648 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Spokane is home to many higher education institutions. - how many?
Concern The answer to this question really depends on what you consider 'higher education'-which is a sort of a slippery slope with the many options you have nowadays-can we really definitively answer this question? I dont want to pick and choose and frame the context of discussion based on my views for the readers. Id rather name the notables and show them some of the variety that is offered.G755648 (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mukogawa Fort Wright Institute - I don't think we should link to Fort Wright in the middle of an organization's name
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • winningest - I know some people stand by this term, but I'm sure there's something else that we can use, a more standard English word
Done "successful"G755648 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A lot of the information on the Spokane Indians would be better for an article on the team itself. We don't need to know about the 1946 crash, for instance. The #Sports section should be much more recent in its focus
Done Deleted sentence and reference
  • af2 - What is this?
Done arenafootball2 league.
  • Sports Travel Magazine worth a redlink? Then again, if it's a really minor or local publication, this shouldn't be mentioned.
Its OK I thinkI dont think we need a redlink here. Its not local and nobody reading this article will know much about it. The magazine is from Los Angeles.G755648 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Over the past decade, - beginning when? This is a relative time modifier, and would work better as "Since 2004" or something which does not change over time
Done I took out the text and slightly changed the sentence, its not really needed.G755648 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Today, - which is...? See WP:PRECISELANG, as this seems to be a common issue.
DoneDeletedG755648 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Through service is a legacy of BNSF Railway's old Spokane, Portland and Seattle Railway trackage.- I've read this four times and not gotten your meaning. Is it meant to be related to Amtrak?
Fixed I think its clear now. Yes, The tracks that lead to Seattle and Portland were built by the SPS Railway, which was then bought by the Great Northern and then BNSF-which is what Amtraks uses.
  • 4,800-acre airport - give hectares too?
DoneG755648 (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Felts Field is a general aviation airport serving the Spokane area and is located in east Spokane along the Spokane River. Felts Field served as Spokane's primary airport until commercial air traffic was redirected to Geiger Field after World War II. - expand a little, rather than have a two-sentence paragraph? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
It looks like Ive got more than enough ideas to start making this article better thanks to you and Ill be working on this probably over the next few days or so as time permits. Thank you for the taking the time to review this Crisco!G755648 (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Went into a bit more detail.
  • Still working through
  • a position which it wrested from Cheney in 1886. - if the people of Spokane were armed when doing this, "wrested" may be an understatement
ClarificationAccording to the article, it was actually the Cheney citizens who were armed. It says in 1881, after a close recount of the votes to determine the county seat, the Spokanites claimed the county seat, but then the armed Cheneyites came to take it back. It wasnt until 1886 that it was permanently transferred to Spokane, in a peaceful manner.
  • The most prominent politician in Spokane, and arguably Washington, - I'd quote someone here. This is an opinion, which means it should not be in Wikipedia's voice
Done I think it is a matter of fact when seen in terms of rank in Congress, nobody from Washington comes even close to Speaker of the House and third in line to the Presidency, but I have rephrased it.G755648 (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Spokane operates Washington's only waste-to-energy plant, as well as two solid waste transfer stations in the Spokane area as part of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, a collaboration between the City of Spokane and Spokane County. - Do you need "in the Spokane area"? I think it's implicit
DoneG755648 (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Monroe Street Hydroelectric Development site has the distinction of being the oldest hydroelectric generation facility in Washington. = this should have a reference that is not related to the city
Fixed Couldnt find one after a brief search so Ill just take it out.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • there were 208,916 people, 87,271 households, and 49,204 families residing in the city. - sounds almost as if they were separate
Those are just relevant facts and figures from the census that most any city article has, I dont think we are really supposed to find relationships between the figures.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 34.2% of all households were made up of individuals, and 11% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. - sentences shouldn't start with numerals. Several further examples under this one
  • Link the different religious branches/movements?
  • in recent decades. - again, a more concrete term would be preferable
DoneI think someone else got to it before me, Im not finding those words in the article.
  • Russian and Ukrainian - are they combined in the source? Considering recent events, I feel wary combing them here.
Justification The source used and any other source would talk and lump them in as a single group (in this case as "Russians-Ukrainians"). I dont think we should concern ourselves with the politics and troubles between the two countries in Europe, these are just facts; they both would identify as being part of the Spokane Slavic community. I dont think the tensions in Europe spill over into the communities in Spokane anyway, the communities are pretty integrated by now.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • urban blight and the preparations leading up to Expo '74 led to its eventual demolition - the Chinatown or the Asian community? One does not demolish communities, after all
Fixed Clarified. Noticed and fixed the source link, it was going to the wrong encyclopedia article.G755648 (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • For newspapers, you can use the work= parameter to avoid having to force italics with single quote marks (it's formatted automatically)
Good tipCant use it in this instance because looks like it automatically creates a link to whatever is in there and we already used up our one S-R link.
  • That's odd... the template shouldn't do that — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • a sizable area downtown - how sizeable?

Done The article roughly describes the triangle area, I included it in the sentence.G755648 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again CriscoG755648 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's it for today. I'll do the remaining two sections (Culture and Cityscape) tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • the Victorian-era style - would the Victorian-style be simpler? Link?

DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Again, link on first mention

Done I thinkG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Queen Anne and early Craftsman styles - Link?

DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • strategically placed outside Spokane city limits to avoid "burdensome taxes." - I think this conveys the same information even if we lose "strategically"

DoneG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Many of the former town's houses were built to house railroad workers, many immigrant laborers working in the local yard, who gave Hillyard an independent, blue-collar character. Hillyard still caters to new arrivals, becoming a popular home for Spokane's growing Russian, Ukrainian, and Southeast Asian communities. - another case of what looks like marketese

Question Am I allowed to talk about the character of the neighborhood or are you concerned mostly with the second part of the sentence?? Im thinking you might want that sourced, so I have put the Hillyard thumbnail reference there just in case, despite my concerns of citation bombardment. Second part now reads: Hillyard has become a home for much of Spokane's growing Russian, Ukrainian, and Southeast Asian communities. Let me know if that is a still 'marketese'.G755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Built in renaissance and Spanish revival style, the Davenport Hotel cost two million dollars to complete, and was state of the art at the time of opening in September of 1914 with its opulent interior, chilled water, elevators, and air cooling. - again, the marketese is seeping through

Fixed I thinkG755648 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Also of note is the Spokane County Courthouse in West Central (the logo of Spokane County) - What about the Monroe St. Bridge?
Addressed We mention its in the City of Spokane seal when we talk about Cutters worksG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DoneG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

1)It used to but I delinked it because "Mount Spokane State Park" doesnt have its own article so its in the Mount Spokane article, we already used up our one link for it in the Topography section.
2)Done I dont know. Took out the elaboration for DishmanG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • including a Skyride that is a rebuilt gondola lift that carries visitors across the falls from high above the river gorge. - a skyride or a Skyride?
Done "skyride" I thinkG755648 (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • the most notable of which is the Spokane River Centennial Trail, which features over 37.5 miles (60.4 km) of paved trails running along the Spokane River from Spokane to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. - of course the source is going to say that, as it's related to the trail. Alternative source?
Done Googlebooked itG755648 (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There are also many natural areas where outdoors activities can be enjoyed close by. - more marketese.
DoneDeleted.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The closest of these is the Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park, operated by a non-profit organization. - what does the NPO have to do with the city? It's irrelevant in an article on the city itself, except to give a positive impression of the park.
Done Deleted.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • considered somewhat lacking by some, - By some is not good
Done I included the organization that holds the viewpoint. Switched out archived link to the new siteG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Spokane Jazz Orchestra is a non-profit organization formed in 1962 that claims to be the nation's "oldest, continually performing, professional, and community-supported 17-piece big band." - again, promotional
Done DeletedG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed I think now reads: seek to generate interest in science, technology, engineering, and math among the youth in a hands-on experience
  • the Bing Crosby Memorabilia Room at the Crosby Student Center of Gonzaga University, - by all rights Crosby should be linked on first mention

Done G755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • are also of note. - more POV
Done Sourced to a googlebook.G755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Spokane was once home to a sizable Japanese community centered in what was once Spokane's "Chinatown." - irrelevant here, as you've discussed it already above
Done Deleted sentence.G755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not mean to assume bad faith, but it would be a good idea to declare if you have a conflict of interest in regards to this article. The constant positive POV suggests that this is very likely. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I didnt write most of the article. I am working to try to fix the issues just as you are-thats why I am taking your suggestions to tweak these sentences. The issue is being resolved, please be patient while I work through these edits. I will say I do live in Spokane, I am not being paid to edit this article and I am trying to use reliable NPOV sources.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now owing to the constant, sometimes glaring, positive POV in this article. The crime section is barely remembered by the time one gets to the glowing "Culture" and other sections. This POV needs to be purged before I support. For instance, Robert Lee Yates and the Death of Otto Zehm are both fairly recent and reached national prominence (there are several books about Yates), yet are not in the article. I'm not saying they should be, but there is the possibility that negative aspects of the city have been left out or downplayed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A couple additional points: I'm not convinced by the quality of the sourcing (several sentences were unreferenced, and many others are cited to less stellar sources), and if I'm not mistaken a previous review found issues with close paraphrasing. I'd like to be sure these are dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

DoneCrime section has been supplemented with information about Spokane's most notorious serial killer and about recent incidents of officer involved shootings.G755648 (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review. I will try to dedicate as much time as I can to work on the issues above over the weekend, since I might be getting more busy next week. The bulk of the POV/marketese sentences were always most likely to be in the Culture section, and Ill comb that whole section looking specifically for those POV sentences and tweaking the language so it sounds less promotional. I see most of the POV sentences that you listed are clear, but the reasons behind others not so much..Ill elaborate on the questions I have as I go through them in the coming days.
As for the Crime section, I thought that was pretty NPOV, and gave a good overview of the overall situation. I didnt know that coverage some cases of individual crimes would be necessary. I will expand the section talking about the officer involved shootings (using Otto Zehm as the talking point) and probably mention what is being done to try to prevent them in the future (body cameras, etc). I might briefly mention some of the serial killers that have garnered attention in Spokane such as the South Hill rapist and Yates. When I looked at the Youngstown, Ohio, Providence, Rhode Island and Tulsa featured articles, I saw they dont go into that kind of detail, but I do see that the San Francisco, California article does mention some notable cases and it might not be as unusual as I think. In regard to the sourcing, I need some additional information to act on and fix the problem. If you could give me examples of what you are seeing and list some of the ones you would like re-sourced to something else with a brief reason why you think the source isnt ideal, that would be great. Some of the sentences that you tagged as 'citation needed' I thought would fall into the realm of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but I think what I saw is probably only for the good article criteria:"direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Ill grab a source and put them in there. As for the citations that were there at the start of the FAC process, I got a chance to look at many of those as I was updating the refs looking for linkrot and double checking the book pages to see if its the right one, and I havent seen many significant issues with the references so far; almost all the sources are there for all to see, so if you see one let me know. Thank you again for critiquing and helping the article!G755648 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A good rule of thumb might be to avoid using local newspapers when RSes from outside Spokane are available, and I'd really like to see "History link" replaced with something a bit more solid. Still concerned about that fairly minor magazine award. Stuff like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What magazine award? The Sports event of the year?? If you are concerned with it I can take it out if you likeG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be nice, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Historylink seems fine to me. according to the website is an "evolving online encyclopedia of Washington state and local history. It provides a free, authoritative, and easily accessible history reference for the benefit of students, teachers, journalists, scholars, researchers, and the general public." It is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation that "With a few exceptions, HistoryLink essays are fully sourced, bylined, and dated to provide authoritative references for legal, journalistic, and scholastic use...With a few noted exceptions, all essays and features on this site are original works prepared exclusively for by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts. All essays and features are vetted by professional staff" The website originally only covered the Seattle area but was expanded state-wide and is one of the primary sources for the Seattle featured article. Each essay has their sources are listed at the bottom of each essay in great detail. You can see these above the essay's author [19]. All the text is licensed under the Creative Commons license. HistoryLink is one of the primary sources used in the Seattle featured article.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's nice, and you're right: the website isn't as bad as I thought it may be. However, it is still predominantly a local (and thus possibly COI) resource. For instance, the article you link to is by Laura Arksey, a member of the Spokane historical society, whom you appear to cite predominantly for general information, information which may be found in more traditionally reliable sources that are not related to the city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As a side note: HistoryLink has been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard twice (1, 2) but the feedback is contradictory. I'd prefer stronger sourcing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree with you on the sourcing to the local history site, I always prefer solid book sources (which are available) for a lot of them. Overall now I think the coverage is getting there but as you say the tone in parts and sourcing lets it down. My gut feeling on this was to withdraw and to get a few pairs of eyes on the prose and try to overhaul the sourcing and then renominate after a peer review in which we're all fairly content with it for FA. It's achievable, but I think there is too much needing doing and overhauling to make this worth keeping open. It's definitely improved a fair bit from when it was nominated though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I see your concerns about HistoryLink since it isnt a slick website and might look amateurish compared to other sites and since it is on that noticeboard, but that first time I dont see anybody raising too much of an issue over it and the second one shows someone not opposed to using it. I would like to you to be open minded and take a further look at it though. Also, I dont think I would consider it a "local" source, although some of the authors are local historians-Jim and Laura it looks like, not all of them are (David Wilma, Kit Oldham, Cassandra Tate are historians from Seattle [20], which is where Historylink is based), and their sources come from solid sources such as books etc are cited at the bottom of the essays they write for HistoryLink, so location isnt too relevant. Arkseys Great Fire article cites 4 books and a periodical [21]. Jim Kershner (born in Denver if that matters) is an accomplished author who has written a few books and has won national awards in journalism, and Arksey is a published author as well. The reviewers of the Seattle featured article must have determined it was a reliable and reputable source even though HistoryLink is a local to Seattle. Im not sure if being from a local organization would completely discredit that organization as having a conflict of interest, these people are professionals (they arent armchair historians from Wikipedia); for instance, if it was a California encyclopedia and staff historians from UC Berkeley were writing an article for HistoryLink on San Francisco, I dont think anyone would have a problem with that. Simply being local shouldnt mean there is a conflict of interest or discredit a person or organization or book, we are dealing with professionals here. The writers of that area are almost always going to be locally or regionally based, thats natural since the topic is relevant to them. I havent seen any POV issues with HistoryLink and that makes sense because it deals only with history (Washington state history), and doesnt make comment on things such as culture, which can naturally lends itself to some POV issues if not done by a professional. Luckily, Historylink is written by qualified and professional staff authors and historians, some which hold PhDs and for their works, All essays and features are vetted by professional staff. HistoryLink has been reviewed in the past by the people who did the Seattle FAC and FAR, and they thought it acceptable, Im not sure why its receiving so much scrutiny here.

If you have any questions about them I encourage you to contact them with the information below from their site: Research Inquiries: Education Team: Office:

As for the tone, that has been much improved since Crisco scoured the whole article. I think I have completed every one of those suggestions Crisco recommended and I am keeping an eye out for other tone issues if there are some left. I dont think it should be too much of a problem now since Crisco did sweep through the whole article. The tone issues were for the most part easy to spot and primarily confined to the Culture section, which like I said is naturally the place its going to occur. Although a problem, those issues are by far the easiest to fix, most of them take only a second to lop off a part of a sentence or take out a word, etc. I am inclined to keep this open for the time being for us to look things over. If you see any more tone issues, tell me about them, but unless you see a lot more of these marketese sentences, I would say its sort of a non issue now-but Like I said, Im keeping an eye out for them.
Would like to again thank you both and the others who have taken the time to look at this article. Its getting better thanks to our efforts!G755648 (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It's starting to look better, but I'm still concerned about HistoryLink. You cite its essays 33 times, a solid 12% of your citations are to the website. It's still a local history society, and thus may have a COI for things related to the city (including their position on urban renewal). Hence why I've asked several times for more independent sources, at least for FAC. On individual features in the city, HL would probably be fine, even at the FAC, but I'm doubtful if it should be relied on as heavily in an article on the city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for keeping an open mind. I really dont think HistoryLink is a bad reference though, and I think it would be a huge detriment to the article if we lose that resource needlessly so Im going to try to address as many issues with this as I can. I think you are missing the point of some of what I said up there. This seems like a straw man fallacy, everyone keeps saying its a local source like a broken record, but it isnt.
HistoryLink is not a local organization, it says where they are located at the bottom of the site: 1411 4th Ave. Suite 803, Seattle WA 98101. I was also saying that even if it was I dont think it should matter because it is unaffiliated with the community (HistoryLink lists its sponsors at the bottom of the page as well-its very transparent like that.). Not that I hold such a mistrust of this organization that I believe they are concerned with the civic pride of the communities they are writing about It also has professional historians and authors that are reputable people and would be considered in their own right a respectable source. Dr. Blofeld added one of Jim Kershners books (hes one of their staff historians) in the article, and now I see he is questioning the reliability of the source's (Jim Kershner) essay he wrote on behalf of HistoryLink. Whether he knows it or not, he has been adding references to the article that he himself has spoken against. He also sourced the Whitman Massacre section to the City of Spokane, which I definitely take issue with because it is not a reputable source for things related to history. This doesnt make sense to me.
I would also like to highlight again that although these reputable staff historians are writing these essays, they themselves are not the source of the information. They have consulted works from other historians and academics to write these essays. I will list a sample of what we can all see since I dont think anybody has really given this much of a chance and bothers to look at the links I provided before...Now, if we go to Kirtland Cutter's article titled Cutter, Kirtland Kelsey (1860-1939), Architect: Essay 115 by Kit Oldham (I looked him up, hes an attorney and historian from the Seattle area if that matters to you), go to bottom of the page, and you can see under "Sources", the materials that he has consulted to write the information that WE are going to use for the wikipedia article. This is what I see:

Sources: Henry Matthews, “Kirtland Kelsey Cutter,” in Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects ed. by Jeffrey Karl Ochsner (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994), 78-83; Henry Matthews, “Kirtland Cutter: Spokane’s Architect,” in Spokane & the Inland Empire: An Interior Pacific Northwest Anthology ed. by David H. Stratton (Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1991), 142-177; Henry Matthews, Kirtland Cutter: Architect in the Land of Promise (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998); Edward W. Nolan, A Guide to the Cutter Collection (Spokane: Eastern Washington State Historical Society, 1984); ); Larry Schoonover, email to Laura Arksey, April 4, 2009, in possession of Laura Arksey, Spokane, Washington; Tony and Suzanne Bamonte, Spokane, Our Early History (Spokane: Tornado Creek Publications, 2011), 250-251. Note: This essay replaces an earlier essay on the same subject. It was expanded slightly on October 27, 2011.

As you can see, there are several books in there. If you like traditional book sources, this essay includes information from them. Some of those books are cited in the article, Stratton in particular. Now I will say that when Blofeld asked me to try to get some of those HLs to books, I did so for the ones that I had access to-some of the HistoryLink references are actually doubled up to a book source to provide the reader the ability to learn more about the topic, which I think is important for verifiability-they can actually see it themselves. But, some of those I dont have access to and almost nobody but a historian with the resources that HistoryLink has can access them. I would say those books are solid sources, even though some of them are published locally...problem? I dont think so, were dealing with professional historians here, not a tourism board.
I would like to point out, that HistoryLink not only writes online essays, they have themselves published many books as well with UW Press if you look at their website[22]...they are writing about the community that they live in, Seattle, Washington. I will just list some here:
  • Power for the People: A History of Seattle City Light David Wilma, Walt Crowley and the HistoryLink Staff (2010 History Ink with UW Press)
  • Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition: Washington’s First World’s Fair (2009, History Ink)
  • The Fairmont: The Story of a San Francisco Landmark (2006, for Fairmont Hotels & Resorts)
  • Moving Washington Timeline: The First Century of the Washington State Department of Transportation, 1905-2005 (2005, WSDOT with UW Press)
  • Bellevue Timeline, 1863-2003 (2004, City of Bellevue with UW Press)
  • The Story of Union Station in Seattle (1999, for Sound Transit) The War Years: A Chronicle of Washington State in World War II (2000 in association with the University of Washington Press)
I think HistoryLink has been utilized to that extent that it has because it seems to be deemed by many of the people in the wikipedia community as a reliable source. It is utilized even more so on the Seattle featured article which has gone through 3 FAC/FARs and not once do I see any issue of this being brought up and it seems like an injustice in terms of consistency in the wikipedia community that one article can utilize this source as reliable for almost a decade, but here in this one instance, one reviewer deems it so inadequate it cannot be used for a FA. It has been on the noticeboard twice, but neither time did anybody say it was unacceptable and not OK.. HistoryLink as an organization is independent, hires professional staff historians from a variety of fields, has access to a wealth of information, and is verifiable, vetted and fact checked by staff, transparent, and they even have given their essays a Creative Commons license. I really dont know what there is not to like about that. Its like they made it for wikipedia. I believe it is a reliable source by wikipedia standards. Now, I have not seen any issue with HistoryLink as it pertains to POV (the main issue that you have with Historylink it seems, since you believe it is "local"), but according to what ive been looking at on wikipedia it says:

Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. and this A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.[23]

I have some other questions, if a local source is not to be trusted, why dont you arent you scrutinizing the Spokesman-Review, or Strattons book (not published in Spokane-but still in the region...Meinig is from Palouse, WA-is what he writes POV and suspect too?) These are the questions that are popping up. If you cannot use anything that is local because of a potential conflict of interest, then writing a comprehensive article for something as significant as a whole city would be almost impossible unless its maybe New York City or a place that truly has global significance. This discussion has gotten way longer than I ever expected it to go, and Im sorry for writing a book in here..but I wanted to state my case for HistoryLinks inclusion. I believe it is an excellent resource.
I would like to know how you feel about the sourcing of the rest of the article. Do you like the Crime section now? I added info about Yates and Zehm. I have also been reviewing the Culture section for POV sentences and I found a couple more, but I think it rights right now. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for your input!G755648 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A local press is a bit more trustworthy than a local website, IMHO. Either way, I'll strike my "oppose" above, but I cannot in good faith support with such an (over)reliance on the source which may or may not be reliable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: the noticeboard. One of the two discussions consisted of negative feedback; it's not like the source has never been questioned. Also, the Seattle article was promoted in 2005. Things have changed quite a bit since then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Although I dont understand the insecurities since it is again not a local website, I respect your view on HistoryLink and I am thankful that your are not going to kill the FAC because of a single source. I still want to address your issues to the best of my ability and work with you on this; I value your opinion. I hope the HistoryLink discussion hasnt turned you off to your participation here. I am like you, I would rather cite the book that HistoryLink uses rather than HistoryLink itself, but its hard to use 100% books. I wish I had all the books available to me so I can write this whole thing with books, but I dont have the resources, time, or money to gather all those materials...but luckily the 40 staff historians at HistoryLink do. The sections that we use it for in the history section are mainly in the sections that have an extremely narrow focus and subject matter or are in fairly recent history, so recent that I dont think many books have been published about those events. Its filling the sections that we cant find a book for basically. You said you didnt mind using it in all cases, if you tell me which ones you have the most issues with, I will do my best to source them to something else.
Anyway, you said you were worried about the sentence about the recent downtown renewal in particular before, I found a book through Google called 'Urban Tourism and Urban Change: Cities in a Global Economy' By Costas Spirou to source that sentence to now. I will include it. Thanks for your insight CriscoG755648 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

G755648, can you mention some of the actual notable houses which might be registry buildings in the residential section?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like good idea since we talk about the Davenport in the Commercial section, it will give it some balance. I think Ill probably talk about the Campbell House, it is part of the Museum of Arts and Culture. Ill try to get working on that after I get done working on the fixes Crisco is recommending. Nice job with the edits!
Ill probably be using these sources for the section unless I find something better when I get to it. [24] and [25]

G755648 (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "known at the time as "Spokan [sic] Falls".": Drop the [sic]. Per the article, "the "e" was added in 1883". [I got that one - Dank (push to talk)]
The [sic] was put in because people reading it often see that its missing the 'e' and think that its a typo. Hopefully that doesnt keep happening..G755648 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Spokane tribe": Spokane People uses the word "tribe" exactly once in the text, preferring "the Spokanes". We don't have to walk on eggshells over the name, but if the Spokanes prefer not to be called a tribe, then they aren't a tribe. The word can be ambiguous, because many readers think of a "tribe" as a group of not more than around 150 people, but even so, I have no problem with the word if the Spokanes want to be known that way.
DoneWhatever the reason, if they use 'the Spokanes', I will use that terminology to. It may not have much significance, but I want the article to be agreeable to the most people as possible and its an easy fix. Ill try to switch the language to 'The Spokanes' wherever possible.G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "white people": Some think the phrase isn't idiomatic. White men is, but that is seen by some as sexist, and sometimes it's just wrong. You use "Europeans" in this sense ... but is a person whose family has been in North America for 300 years a European? How about a white person whose family was never in Europe? I don't know. I'll throw this into the pile of things I don't know to handle, yet.
Lol, definitely some questions I dont know how to answer. It used to read just "whites", but that didnt seem clear enough to me some how...change it to whatever you think is best.G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "1883 to the late 19th century": 1883 is the late 19th century, so this could mean anything from a month to 17 years.
Done Good catch. He lists the year when most of the rushes stopped by, 1892.G755648 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "subject to mass migration by blacks": This wouldn't be my choice of language. Was it primarily black men or black families, at that time?
DoneHmm. The book says 'black settlers' came from Roslyn. They were miners, but Im sure they brought families. The book talks about the women during the time too so it must be both. Ill put "African-American"G755648 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made it down to 20th century 21st century, so far. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at the article Dank. Ill probably wait until youre done to do the fixes for most of these, its easier that way.Glad to have your help!G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the largest land mammal that has ever lived. The article was in a sorry state before, but luckily the first semi-technical book devoted to this animal was published last year, which synthesised a lot of obscure information, and is the main basis for this article. Much of its history is very complicated, and I have tried to explain it in an understandable way. The article is part of the Wikipedia CD Selection, which may be of importance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Indricotherium.jpg: both of the links under the description are dead - they're not essential, but if you have updated links that would be nice
I'd rather just remove them, but do you prefer links perhaps? FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "restoration" really the correct word for those drawings? It's not a usage I'm familiar with
It is widely used for "palaeoart". Palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs": "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Indricotherium11.jpg: this appears at deviantart under a different license, one not acceptable for Wikipedia
It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Commons. He has dozens of other images there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg: again, published elsewhere under a more restrictive license. The situation needs to be clarified as the two licenses are not compatible. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It was also uploaded by the Deviantart user to Russian Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments - ooh goody, glad someone has buffed this. I'd planned to do it one day but pleased someone else has...I'll just order the book and read at my leisure :)

....comments below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the book is weirdly balanced I think, I'd have liked more info about specimens for example, but instead there's pages and pages of biographies... FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Alot of sentences in para 2 of lead start with "It..." - it'd be good to vary the sentences a bit.
Ah, forgot this, varied a bit, does it need more? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
the shoulder height was about 6 metres (20 feet), and the length about 8.0 metres (26.2 feet). - why 8.0 metres and not 8 here?
Not sure, conversion templates were added by the copyeditor. But their parameters seem to be set the same way? How can this be fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I removed the .0, fixed it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The classification of the genus and the species within has a long and complicated history. - I suspect "taxonomy" may be a more accurate word than "classification" here.....
Yes, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
although the latter may be a distinct genus. - "latter" --> "last" as there are three not two items listed.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd link taxonomy at first mention
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The superfamily Rhinocerotoidea can be traced back to the early Eocene age - "age" is redundant and misleading here - should be removed
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you've erred slightly on the side of underlinking - I'd link vertebra, molar, premolar, incisor...some of the more obscure things in para 2 of skull section might have links too.
A lot links were removed and much was reworded during copyediting, I'll fix it. SOme words, like incisor, are already linked. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything more on the habitat at all in the source?
I'll see if I can squeeze some more out. Perhaps the stuff about territories and "home ranges" could be moved into that section from behaviour as well? This: "Prothero suggests that animals as big as indricotheres would need very large home ranges or territories of at least 1,000 square kilometres (250,000 acres), and that because of a scarcity of resources, there would have been little room in Asia for many populations or a multitude of nearly identical species and genera. This principle is called competitive exclusion; it is used to explain how the black rhinoceros (a browser) and white rhinoceros (a grazer) exploit different niches in the same areas of Africa." FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that'd be good into a paleobiology section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I meant whether it should be moved from palaebiology to habitat/distribution? FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry/yes/my bad/go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • support on comprehensiveness and prose. overall a good read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and comments Article reaches the standard, just a couple of points for you to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The reason for the animal's extinction is unknown— "reasons... are"? Likely to be multiple according to your article
  • sizes ranged from dog-sized to the size of Paraceratherium.— rephrase to avoid three sizes in one sentence
  • pi (π) shaped— should be hyphenated, and I think piped "π-shaped" looks neater anyway
Thanks, fixed the two first suggestions. You don't think I would need to spell pi out? I'd believe not all people are familiar with the sign? FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, the hyphen is obligatory, as with L-shaped later, so you need would pi- (π-) shaped, which is awful. I think that anyone reading this article would be familiar with what is probably the best known of all Greek letters, more so than with perissodactyl, and the link through to the article would immediately enlighten anyone who didn't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone.

  • Interesting beast, and interesting article. Quite a few prose/accessability issues
The article was thoroughly copy edited by bafflegab, so should be ok, but I'll fix these issues later today. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1908, he referred the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium, as the new species A. bugtiense." I couldn't understand this sentence; I am guessing the reason is an odd use of the word "referred", but can't be sure.
"Refer" is standard taxonomy language, changed to assigned or moved. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1913, Forster-Cooper named Thaumastotherium ("wonderful beast") osborni based on larger fossils from the same excavations..." Not sure what this is saying exactly. This appears to be talking about a new species called Thaumastotherium osborni - is that correct? If so, then the paragraph probably needs clearer signposting that we are going to be talking about multiple species. If not, then i don't understand what it's saying.
It is saying he named a new taxon, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a literally correct, but very unorthodox use of the term "preoccupied" that would be better replaced with something else, such as "the former name had already been used to describe..."
I'm not so sure, that is standard taxonomy language, and even has a good redirect. The taxonomy section uses taxonomic language, simplifying it will probably not be helpful to convey the exact meaning. But I have clarified this. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "... so fragmentary that Foster-Cooper was unsure what kind of perissodactyl they belonged to..." This isn't fair to the reader - it isn't enough to provide a link to such an obscure term, particularly when that link turns out to be a redirect. The text should explain more fully what the difficulty here was about.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1936, Walter Granger and William K. Gregory proposed that Forster-Cooper's Baluchitherium osborni was likely a junior synonym of Paraceratherium bugtiense because these specimens were collected at the same locality and were possibly part of the same morphologically variable species.[16] Forster-Cooper had expressed similar doubts.[17] This was also suggested by William Diller Matthew in 1931." - how can someone "also suggest" something before the other person proposes it? The chronology of this section needs to be reworked to put the proposals in chronological order, oldest first.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • regarding the same passage, i think a plain English explanation of junior synonym will help readability.
Clarified. FunkMonk (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Similar issue with nomina dubiae
Changed to the English term dubious names. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "Paraceratherium is considered the largest known land mammal that has ever existed" - very unusual to use the singular for a genus containing several species. Should it not read "are considered to have been the largest known land mammals ever to have existed"?
Well, it is a genus, singular, just like for example Diplodocus, Stegosaurus, etc. Likewise, you could say "the elephant is the largest living land mammal", or "Stegosaurus had spikes on its tail" even though the terms denote multiple species. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't look at the rest right now, but there's some to start with. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Can I clarify: current literature recognises multiple species, is that correct? At least 3 and possibly as many as 7? It is hard to be clear from that section what the current view(s) are.
Four species. This is specifically mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, and the second paragraph under Species and synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't see an explanation or link for the reader to explain the Christian cross-shaped symbol used in the infobox. What is its significance?
(Animalparty responding) The dagger symbol (not a Christian cross) is a widely used symbol in biology and paleontology to indicate extinct taxa. Some articles have the dagger wikilinked to extinction, or have an HTML code that says "extinct" when a pointer hovers over it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It is extinction. It has been added to most articles about extinct animals, so it is a wider issue that I have little to no control over. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I guess what I meant to say is, this should be explained and/or linked for readers. I've fixed that with a note in the box. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
They used to be links, it seems the template has been altered. It should be relinked, then a note will be redundant. I'll see if I can fix it. See also this discussion: Also see here[26], where I've proposed the dagger should be a link. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Like User:Animalparty, I don't believe the article should begin with taxonomy. I don't believe any article about a thing should start with anything other than a description of that thing, a view I have expressed in the past at FAC. It is a pattern that has become mistakenly established in our articles about animals, and I don't really have the energy to try and turn all of them around. However, the pattern in plant FAs, such as Banksia marginata, which I do support, is to begin with the description. This is also the convention set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. Note also that the article template at Wikiproject animals also does not start with taxonomy: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Article template - instead it begins with anatomy and morphology, which is essentially description of the thing. I think it is crazy to have an encyclopedia for everyone that has articles that do not begin by telling the reader what it is we are talking about. I believe that this has resulted from our animal articles following the practice of the scientific literature. But Wikipedia isn't the scientific literature, it is written so that an everyday reader can access it. I propose the order to be: description - taxonomy - palaeobiology - distribution and habitat. In the case of the P. article I would have thought this would be particularly helpful, since the description (and its uncertaintly) would help the reader understand why the taxonomy is so complicated. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, see my response to Animalparty, which he agreed with. Most other FAs about mammals start with taxonomy, so I prefer to follow this clear precedent. FunkMonk (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand that, i'm just wanting to be clear that I don't support the practice, in those precedents or here - i don udnerstand why you would want to follow it. One of the difficulties is in knowing how to change the practice, given that the approach isn't grounded in a Wikiproject template or guideline. But I'll leave this for delegates. :-)
I've actually reconsidered and think precedents should be questioned. There are relatively few paleo mammal FA, and while there does appear to be a common structure of having Taxonomy or classification before description, lets face it some go pretty deep into the minutiae. The trend appears reversed in dinosaur articles (e.g. Allosaurus, Iguanodon, Tyrannosaurus), which often delve deeply into the history of discovery well after the description, and I don't see why that can't be a precedent. The mammal taxa on average don't seem to have taxonomic histories as complex or detailed as Paraceratherium, and the length alone might suggest it be restructured. It may just come down to style differences (i.e. opinions), but I feel most readers would be interested in the size, description, and biology first, and care less about soldiers in Baluchistan (do we need to know his name was Vickaery?), nomenclatural nuances, and lots of names unfamiliar to the average reader (notable scientists be they may). Like I said below, I believe little to nothing would be lost by restructuring, and big-picture clarity might be improved. But I also don't think it's worth debating a whole lot, so I've said my piece. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, then all it comes down to is taste, not policy. Dinosaur articles are structured quite differently from mammal and even bird articles overall, so I don't think they work as precedents. As also noted below, most sources about this animal start by untangling the taxonomic issue before anything else, which gives the subsequent info context. I think you can find as many people (including myself) who prefer taxonomy first as not, but I don't think this article should be a battleground for that. Better to bring it up on the tree of life wikiproject talk page or some such. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Animalparty[edit]

--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

  • The taxomomic history is probably the least interesting and least useful to the majority of readers: I think it should be moved to below the Description and Paleobiology. I don't think any clarity is lost by doing so, i.e. there is little in the Taxonomy section that is crucial to understanding the description, etc. Moving the taxonomy to the end would also mirror the current layout of the lead, which is preferable for logical flow.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure, first, it follows the structure of most other mammal FAs (lion, elephant, giraffe, woolly mammoth, etc.), which almost always have the taxonomy sections first. Secondly, after its size, the taxonomy issue is the most often mentioned and potentially confusing issue regarding this animal, so it is therefore one of the most important things to clarify before the reader goes on to the rest of the article. Thirdly, the section flows naturally into evolution, which should definitely be at the beginning of the article. And I'd hesitate to claim that most people would find the section the least interesting, if they do, it is rather easy to skip it. Prothero 2013 devotes a very long chapter to taxonomic history, before even describing the animal and its biology. I think this article should follow the precedents set by other FAs and the sources cited. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I won't object to precedents.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think a couple of red-linked terms in the Description section should be defined in plain English or omitted rather than left red-linked: e.g. "had pleurocoel-like openings" means virtually nothing unless the reader already knows what a pleurocel is, and "graviportal build" is similarly jargony.
Fixed those you mentioned. More? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Additionally, I'd like to see a bit more nuance in the evolution section. Is the 1989 cladogram still the consensus (if there is any)? The cladogram shows one hypothesis, yet the following sentence suggests at least one opposing view. Is there anything more recent that resolves the conflict? Here, citations to review articles or secondary texts (like Prothero 2013) might be best to provide balance and context. If there is controversy, explain it!
Prothero strictly follows the 1989 cladogram, the other hypotheses, Holbrook and the Chinese ones (which are already explained as iffy in this article), are minority views. Not much more to say about Holbrook's view, because his conclusion regarding indricotheres was just a short side remark in a study about a wider group, including tapirs. Also, this article is about a specific genus, not the indicothere subfamily as a whole, so in depth discussion of classification issues for the entire group is best left for the subfamily page. But I've added a bit more clarification. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks better now.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In the text above the cladogram, why is it emphasized that Triplopodinae was found to be the sister taxon to Indricotheriinae? Assuming there are only 2 subfamilies, isn't this a likely result?(oops, see below) or was this the first time Triplopodinae was proposed? Since Triplopodinae is red-linked, you may want to define or clarify it, and perhaps invert the sentence structure so that Indricotheriinae (the more relevant clade to Paraceratherium, and one which the readers will have encountered by this point) is mentioned before Triplopodinae (an otherwise foreign term for the reader).
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Regarding the cladogram itself: Why is the rest of Hyracodontidae omitted? Going only by that cladogram, one might assume (as I did) that Hyracodontidae consists only 2 families. The stem of the cladogram should be more clear.
The original source does not include more clades at the stem, so adding any would be original synthesis. But I have added the hyracodont name, as in the source, so should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In a 1999 study, Luke Holbrook instead found the indricotheres to be outside the hyracodontid group and wrote that the indricotheres may not be a monophyletic grouping. K. Heissig suggested that they were most closely related to rhinocerotids" - The form of these sentences gives the impression that Heissig' suggestion was published in Holbrook 1999, which presumably is not correct. Heissig should be individually referenced (or at least "Heissig (cited in Holbrook)"), and some kind of conjunction between the clauses (similarly? alternatively?) might also help flow.
I will add a year in front of Hessig's sentence. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my comments. Reads a bit better now. P.S. there are some public domain tooth and bone illustrations in Forster-Cooper (1911) that may or may not be useful to include.--Animalparty-- (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the illustration of a jaw is actually from that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
  • New comment: I noticed some of the old journal titles were incorrect (e.g. "Journal of Natural History" rather than "Annals and Magazine of Natural History"). I've fixed some, but more might need double-checking: e.g. "Records of the Geological Survey of India" might in fact be "Memoirs of ...". --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Weird, especially since those refs are filled in by a bot. And by the way, DOIs are already links, so for example here[27], there are two links to the same page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Well that's why you can't trust bots! :) Also, some DOIs link to Subscription sites, e.g. this one, because for some reason Taylor & Francis publishers demand payments for public domain works, even some over 100 years old!--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank the maker for and biodiversity library... FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • New Comment: The duration and time that Paraceratherium lived should be emphasized and clarified a bit: the lead mentions the Oligocene, the taxobox says 34–23Ma, but that seems to be the entire duration of the Oligocene. Do Paraceratherium fossils span the entire Oligocene or just a section? The Distribution and habitat mentions 11 million years but that has not been firmly stated in the article yet beyond the taxobox. Some dates (even if rough) in the lead and body would help, e.g. "...lived in the Oligocene epoch, from around XX to XX million years ago", with maybe some discussion of earliest and latest stage/age of occurrence in the body. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The sources are a bit superficial when it comes to this issue, Prothero writes several pages about how some formations have been inaccurately dated in the past, but there is little about when the various species then actually existed. I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have made it a bit clearer now, and added a bit more info about other things. FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "and that it contains three discernible species; P. bugtiense (the type species), P. transouralicum, P. prohorovi, and P. orgosensis, although the last may be a distinct genus"- Did you mean four discernible species, or three discernable species with one equivocal species?
    • "The three species of Paraceratherium are mainly discernible through skull characteristics. P. bugtiense and P. orgosensis..." same as above, are there 3 or 4 in referering to P. orgosensis?
I was a bit unsure what to do with P. prohorovi, Prothero says it may not be possible to evaluate its placement, which I interpreted as him saying it was a dubious name, but he doesn't say this specifically, so I added the species anyway. So it should be four, I have fixed this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "The first fossils of Paraceratherium were discovered by the British geologist Guy Ellcock Pilgrim ... In 1908, he moved the species to the extinct rhinoceros genus Aceratherium..."- this might be clarified to something like: "The first fossils now recognized as Paraceratherium... In 1908 he placed the species in the extinct ...", since Pilgrim didn't really move anything yet.
Good catch, I implemented the first suggestion you made, but worded the rest a bit differently. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't P. bugtiense Pilgrim, 1908 be written as P. bugtiense (Pilgrim, 1908) due to Forster-Cooper's new combination?
Yes, done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • "and distinct crochets of its molars" -what's a crochet?
Good question, the source doesn't give a definition... I'll give it an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Nope, nothing... FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
My guess would be a hook-like projection or hook-shaped structure, given the derivation of crochet. I've seen it mentioned in some paleo works but not clearly defined. I'll keep looking. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Just a question that's not mentioned: How many toes did Paraceratherium have?
I think one source specifically says that this is unknown, I will add this. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It only said the front feet had three toes, but it seems all rhinos have both three front and hind toes on each limb, so I'm not sure if this is redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (No not yet. see below)- I think with the resolution of this last set of comments the article is readable, coherent, and complete. Some of the red-linked terms do stand out a bit, but not detrimentally, and I think the word graviportal can be omitted entirely, or at least unlinked, as the adjective seems an unlikely article to be created (Graviportality? List of large and heavy animals?) and all necessary context is in the article. I think it meets WP:FACR, although there is always room for future improvements: one might be to include views from other secondary sources besides Prothero's- recognized authority as he is- to ensure that a western bias or personal bias isn't inadvertently introduced, and to fairly reflect how other researchers synthesize primary literature, but I don't think this prevents FA promotion. Lastly, it would be really cool to get this image in the article, if allowable, to really hammer home the size of the beast! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. We did actually have that image once, but I realised it was made after 1922, and therefore not PD US. In any case, we do have an image that shows the animal's size next to a museum crowd (with a cast of that skull in an armature), and we do have a photo of that exact skull, so it would be fairly redundant. As for competing hypotheses, I'll add which species and genera that are recognised by Chinese researchers soon. FunkMonk (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Old skull image has been readded (from another source), see below... FunkMonk (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Another set of comments (which is why I've temporarily stricken my support):
  • First, I don't think this should be passed on as FA until someone with access to the original references does at least a cursory review. I may be able to access a university library within the week, or otherwise obtain the subscription journal articles.
That is how FACs are always done (standard practice), there is a "source review" and an "image review". The source review is done before the article can be passed, so supports have no bearing on it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The taxobox mentions 4 species under Species, yet only 3 species under species synonyms. Is P. prohorovi without synonyms? (totally fine if so). But going solely from the info in the article (please verify), shouldn't P. transouralicum Pavlova, 1922 and ?P. orgosensis Chiu, 1973 be written P. transouralicum (Pavlova, 1922) and ?P. orgosensis (Chiu, 1973) since they were both originally in a different genus?
P. prohorovi has no junior synonyms. As for parenthesis, this is not done in the sources, though, but it is technically true. Added. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • The Paraceratherium/Indrocotherium synonymy debate seems a bit more equivocal than stated. Ye et al. (2003) mention that McKenna and Bell's classic Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level (1997) recognizes the two genera as distinct. A 2004 description of P. yagouense recognizes both genera as well as Dzungariotherium. Sen et al 2011 (p. 12) do appear to show that most authors favor synonymy, but mention that Fortelius and Kappelman 1993 considered the two genera distinct, which is evident in the abstract. A 1959 monograph by Gromova apparently makes a case for the distinction of the two. I haven't seen McKenna & Bell or Fortelius & Kappelman to evaluate, but they may have salient comments. I realize that these conflicting opinions make a single article harder to write, but that's what we're stuck with. I don't know if Prothero mentions this or if newer literature clarifies it, but to dismiss or understate the views of non-western paleontologists would make an imbalanced article. Even if the 2-3 genus view is a minority, I think it warrants more coverage than "a 2003 paper by Chinese researchers".
McKenna and Bella (and others) only used the names without any analysis, therefore it has little scientific weight. Prothero complains about this in his book. The Chinese researchers actually argue for it, but with arguments that are not considered valid by Prothero and others. I can add a little more commentary. Pre-1989 articles can't really be used to contest more recent opinions. Also, P. yagouense has since been moved to Urtinotherium.FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Added mention. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a reference of P. yagouense being reassigned? Not arguing, just curious. --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be worth stating the most common synonym(s) at the top of the article, e.g. "Paraceratherium, also known as Indricotherium,.... " or perhaps at the end of the first paragraph. Both names (with and without "also known as...") are fairly prevalent both in popular and scientific literature: a Google Scholar search for Indricotherium -Paraceratherium in the last 20 years yields about 150 results, while the opposite yeilds about 100. A Google N-gram search similarly shows I. a little more common than P. (but both dwarfed by Baluchitherium!) --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I would hesitate to do this, these are not common names, they are synonyms (and are often mentioned in most works that don't even recognise them, therefore they get recent scholar hits) and they are already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead (which used to be the second, until someone complained on the talkpage it was too complicated for regular readers to start with). Baluchitherium is not considered valid by any researchers today, which also shows that scholar hits may not be entirely useful for determining anything here. FunkMonk (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • By the way, in case a new, authoritative revision splits the genera apart again, almost all of the info in this article would be moved to an Indricotherium article. It seems more likely that Dzungariotherium will be split, though, but splitting that off would have little consequence here, as there is little info abut it. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Hamiltonstone and Animalparty, I'm not sure if you left your reviews without conclusions due to the taxonomy section not being move, but the issue has a general discussion here, which is a better place to continue that point: FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review #2[edit]

I'm sorry to repeat this when one was already done, but I found a big issue in the initial check, so... File:Paraceratherium.jpg - This is listed as PD-Old-70, but the death date for G. M. Woodward is not given, so there's no evidence it is. Possibilities:

  • If this was published in the U.S., say so, replace license with {{PD-US-1923}}
  • If it wasn't published in the U.S., find Woodward's death date, show he died over 70 years ago.
  • If neither apply, since it's from 1911, it can be hosted here, on English Wikipedia, but not commons. If moved to here, you must use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} or {{notforcommons}}.

Unfortunately, This blocks promotion to FA.

Other images:

All the above need more documentation to be used.

Two that are fine to use, but which I have notes for:

  • File:Paraceratherium_skull_AMNH.jpg The metalwork can probably be considered incidental, so this passes.
  • File:Paraceratherium herd.jpg Go to the source, flip back two pages, and you'll see a copyright notice. However Looking at [28] we learn that copies of Natural history from before 1927 are out of copyright! So, I've switched the copyright notice to the correct one.
  • File:Paraceratherium restorations 1923.jpg This seems dubious. A single copyright at the front of the book this is published in is enough to make this in-copyright; the licensing isn't documented. Probable copyvio, but could reasonably be used as fair use. Suggest checking to see if the book has been renewed, as {{PD-US-not renewed}} is reasonably likely. FIXED: it's oddly cited, but this is from Natural History. See above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg Insufficient documentation to show sculpture (not just photo) is out of copyright Photo collage Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Paraceratherium outline.jpg - this is a photograph of an apparently modern artwork, and is thus likely copyvio No longer in article, nominated for deletion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: Lots of problems, I'll see what I can do about documenting the problematic ones. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Will check later. Doesn't seem like huge problems to me, just a matter of switching out licenses, checking if people are dead, and possibly cropping out armature in a few photos. FunkMonk (talk) 06:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, we can definitely deal with this. I'd say we should be able to salvage at least 80% of this (for example, the last one listed I've already saved. =) ) Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Cropped the mounted skull image to hide most of the armature. More later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks like Woodward might well be British - the journal the images appeared in was. Annoyingly, there's a more-famous G.M. Woodward who died about a century to be ours; best solution might be to move all his stuff to en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find more about him. By the way, Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is not a sculpture, it is a photo collage (made like this[29]), created by the uploader. Not sure if the base photos are selfmade, but I'd say they are different enough from the originals (every shape is changed) to not be considered derivative works. See also: FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
A very good photo collage. I think that's acceptable then; since it looks like he sells them, I think it's safe to presume they're licensed if not self-made. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • It appears our G. M. Woodward could either be a descendant of the more famous George Moutard Woodward, with lithography being a family speciality, or that G. M. Woodward turned into a sort of "brand" of a workshop. Will look some more into it. There is a little more info at the side here, ring any bells?: FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the armature silhouette with a famous PD image, and nominated the photo for deletion. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • New image is fine. So, by my count, all that's left is the Woodward images. Given the dates, I don't think it'd be a brand or workshop - the "original" Woodward died quite a bit before that kind of practice became common. I could buy descendant, that's certainly common - the Peale family of artist, the Dalziel brothers, the Cruikshanks... Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, hey, I know her sister's work, actually. Alice B. Woodward. So it is a family of biological artists. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Support We've cleared all issues. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Bingo! So we can be pretty sure it's the same person? Thanks a lot! And I also thought of Alice Woodward (she drew many palaeontological restorations), but wasn't sure. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd say it was all but certain, given the list at that site. I mean, we know from that sample list of works that Gertrude Mary Woodward was an expert anatomical artist specializing in fossil bones. That's a fairly unique specialty. The artworks are signed, so we can compare to other works by her to be sure - she apparently did some of the initial illustrations for the Piltdown Man skull, so...Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment File:Indricotherium-rec2.jpg is a photoshopped image composed of at least two source images. The providence of these source images and under what license terms they were obtained, is not indicated. Roman Uchytel, who contributed the image to the Russian Wikipedia, claims copyright for the composite image. However, the background is a picture taken by the Rowan family, on one of the visits they made to Ethiopia, and a high resolution version of the image was available from their blog. Tineye has the evidence. I'm not sure that re-using a scenery image as a background crosses the threshold of originality. The image therefore may constitute copyright violation. Samsara 16:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Can you link to the image in question? That is a pretty long page. In case the background is too similar, I can just paint it white or otherwise alter it enough. Perhaps even a tight crop will do. The important part of the image are the animals, and they seem to be radically modified African rhinos. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Found it myself.[31] So what do people think? White background, or close crop with blur effect on the bg photo? Here's an example of the latter, can be blurred and changed further if it is still too close.[32] FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd say white would probably look better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright. All are fine with that? Or how about black bg? Works pretty well here:[33] Also, what does that family's page say about photo copyright? Perhaps they use free licenses? FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and painted it black, so that it looks more distinct form the drawing under "description". FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Are we still awaiting a source review? If so pls request one at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it appropriate if I make the request? FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, saves me doing it... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've now made the request. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Source check[edit]

  • I corrected one case of incorrectly formatted quotemarks. Otherwise, the sources all appear correctly formatted, although can we not get more specific than, say, Ref#34, which cites a page range of 164 pages for a single citation ("Vera Gromova published a more complete skeletal reconstruction in 1959, based on the P. transouralicum skeleton from the Aral Formation, but this also lacked several neck vertebrae.")? Can we not get the specific page(s) for the statement being cited? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Gromova. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Note - thanks for the thorough reviews. Are we all done and dusted here? Graham Beards (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, seems so... FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Smyth Report[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Smyth Report, the first official administrative history written on the development of the first atomic weapons. The image of the book is that of my own copy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN13: this is formatted with the title as a second author
  • FN5: think it would make more sense to cite the Grove foreword specifically here, rather than the report generally
  • Can you double-check publication details for Coleman and Smith? You've given the two the same page range in the same publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. The Wiki-Gnomes tried to use the sfn template for web pages, which doesn't work too well. Fixed.
  2. I'm not sure what you mean here. Groves's forward is on p. v of Smyth, just like it says.
  3. Coleman had the wrong page range. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Re point 2: yes, I don't doubt that. What I'm suggesting is something along these lines:
Groves, Leslie (1945). "Foreword". In Smyth, Henry DeWolf. Atomic Energy for Military Purposes; the Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-1722-9. 
simply for precision. If you'd prefer not to that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

  • In leads in my articles, I've copied a sentence or two from the text without any hesitation ... but I think the following probably won't fly at FAC, with the part in the text coming just three paragraphs after the lead:
  • In the lead: "The Smyth Report served two functions. First, it was to be the official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons. Second, it served as an indicator for other scientists as to what information was declassified. Anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available, such as the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
  • In the text: "The Report was to serve two functions. First, it was to be the public official U.S. government history and statement about the development of the atomic bombs ... and the basic physical processes responsible for the functioning of nuclear weapons, in particular nuclear fission and the nuclear chain reaction. Second, it served as a barometer for other scientists as to what information was declassified—anything said in the Smyth Report could be said freely in open literature. For this reason, the Smyth Report focused heavily on information already available in declassified literature, such as much of the basic nuclear physics used in weapons, which was either already widely known in the scientific community or could have been easily deduced by a competent scientist."
  • "British Scientific Mission to Manhattan Project": Is that the official title, without the "the"?
    • Not sure. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "easier to imagine unexpected printing problems resulting in himself and his workers returning from summer vacation to find themselves locked out of a plant filled with top secret material": Give that one another shot, please.
    • Broke the sentence in two. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "had text added paragraph 12.18": not sure what's missing
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support
Read and tweaked prose per request by Hawk.
Sources look good. I did not do a spot check. auntieruth (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check - 2 images with problems

  • File:Richard_Tolman_and_Henry_D._Smyth.jpg - do you have a page number for the source here? The PDF has 650+ pages and loads with like 1 page per minute. Also, author is "US Army", but PD is "United States Department of Energy". Is one of it wrong?
    • No. Property of the Manhattan Project passed to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947. It became the Energy Research and Development Administration in 1974, which was absorbed into the Department of Energy in 1977. Added the page number. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Russian cover (last image) - this one has several problems:
  • Date should be date of the book (1946).
  • The author field should name the original author and possibly the editor of the translation: G. Ivanova (unless Google translate screwed something up here), the full Russian publication info from Wikisource is "Г. Д. Смит. Атомная энергия для военных целей. Официальный отчёт о разработке атомной бомбы под наблюдением правительства США. Перевод с английского под редакцией Г. Н. Иванова. Государственное транспортное железнодорожное издательство. Москва — 1946", translated as: "original title" plus "Translation from English, edited by G. Ivanova. Public transport rail publishing. Moscow - 1946".
  • The cover is not "own work" and can't be released under CC, neither by Russian Wikisource nor by us (unless the copyright owner would have released it first). A possible license could be Commons:template:PD-text for non-original texts with simple geometric shapes.
  • Optional, upload date to Russian Wikisource and original uploader should be mentioned (similar to en-Wiki -> Commons transfers).
  • Optional, but an English filename (like Smyth_Report_Russian_translation_cover.jpg) would be a lot easier to handle (and to link).
  • Other images are OK (PD) and have sufficient source and author info. GermanJoe (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 1997 science fiction film. The first nomination for this article was archived just over 2 weeks ago; it did not pass as only two people were supporting it. Numerous concerns were originally brought up, 100% of which were addressed in order to obtain the support of the two reviewers. Naturally this was a time consuming process, and by the time I had the support of the second editor the nomination was at the bottom of the queue, ready to be closed. As all issues known issues have already been addressed, however, I anticipate this nomination being much smoother and quicker. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I was asked to support the nomination on my talk page, but I don't have a problem with that, since I supported the first nomination and the changes since then have been minor. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Back from an involuntary Wikibreak of several months, and I'm happy to dive right back into FAC. I love this film, and I'm really excited to see it here at FAC. Unfortunately, I don't quite think this is to the point where I can support its promotion. I'll start with references and reference formatting, as that's always been my primary evaluation demesne here:

Well, most of those problems seem taken care of, so I've collapsed to make some room. I can still wish for content from that Buckland source, but I've only been able to track down excerpts on line. Pedantically, that's a mark against being a comprehensive literature review, but if it gets down to that being my only objection, I won't hold it against the article; FACR does not quite demand perfection, after all! Some of the references for things like DVD release dates aren't sites that I'd consider RS for broader purposes, but there's a longstanding tradition of tolerance for those sorts of relatively trivial, bare-fact details (and it is a tradition I've benefited from myself). Sourcing looks much better across the board at this point.

  • The "Milla's Tale" reference isn't cited adequately. What you've pointed at is Milla Jovovich republishing an article from a periodical on her website. We can, I think, AGF regarding the fidelity of the reprint. But, importantly, Harpers & Queen is the periodical title (so needs to be styled in italics). And Sara Buys should be credited as the author.
  • Moving on from sources, is there a reason this article doesn't fair use in an image from The Circles of Power? The screenshot used in here even has a FUR that explains it is being used to highlight the influence and comparison, and the other article uses both for that reason. It's a topic clearly discussed in the prose, so I would think a FUR there would be no problem at all.
    • No particular reason. Before I started overhauling The Fifth Element that image was the only one there, whereas the other article had both. Do you think it is acceptable for FAC to format the two pictures in the same manner they are formatted at the other article? It bothers my OCD that the two pictures are not even sizes, and they do take up a rather large chunk of space when set together the way that they are. Freikorp (talk) 09:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't do it exactly like it's currently done in the other article, no. Since the Circles image is more vertical, perhaps resize them to a consistent width and display them stacked in a column? I'm uncertain, but I do think we do the readers a disservice when we talk about the visual similarity between the two works, but then only illustrate half of that comparison. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll try to get back here in the near future for a more thorough prose review, but I caught one issue quickly:
  • From Plot, "The current Mondoshawan contact": This implies that Vito Cornelius is a Mondoshawan. Rather, consider "The Mondoshawan's current contact" or something to that end.

References are in a better place than they were previously. No official stance on the prose until I get some more time with the article, but striking my opposition; I am neutral on promotion at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hiya. Sorry to bother you but i'm a bit anxious to get this passed. Were my previous edits enough to gain your support, or have you noticed more things that need work? :) Freikorp (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to get time for a prose read in the next couple of days. Don't feel anxious! This is still really high up on the FAC page. There's plenty of time (and there ought to be more reviewers) before the coordinators evaluate promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
@Squeamish Ossifrage: Hi, a good deal of time has passed now so if you're able to return it'd probably be helpful... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately Squeamish Ossifrage hasn't made a edit to Wikipedia since October 2nd, and also hasn't left any clear indication on his user page of why he is currently absent, so i'm not filled with confidence that he will return before this review is closed. Freikorp (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Edgepedia[edit]

  • This (could) be my first film article that I've reviewed, so please treat these as suggestions:
    • There appears to me too much blue in the lead. No sure why Earth and taxicab is blue, and we have science fiction action film and special forces major.
    • Plot: In the first paragraph "a Great Evil" seems wrong - surely grammatically it's either the Great Evil or a great evil? I can see what you're trying to say, but perhaps this can be re-phrased?
    • Themes: The quote: "echoe[d] stereotypical beliefs about gender"; don't you mean echo[ed] - i.e. you've added an 'ed'?
      • The original source said 'echoes'. Come to think of it it doesn't need to be passed tense, so i've changed it to 'echoes'. Freikorp (talk)
    • Production: "Besson envisioned the entire world...". Is 'entire' overkill? My brief glance at the source didn't justify it - surely he made up something during the film's development?
    • Effects: Does "20 feet" need conversion? e.g. {{convert|20|ft}} -> 20 feet (6.1 m)
    • Release:
      • Initial Screening: You have a repetition -> 100,000 square feet 100,000 square feet (9,300 m2). Does square feet really need linking?
      • "Gaumont spent between $1 million and $3 million"; I assume you mean US$ (As Cannes is in France it's not obvious as it is in the next paragraph).
        • Added wikilink to US Dollar. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Critical response and legacy: percent, per cent or %? (see WP:PERCENT). Also, in the same section "million euros in damages and interest and 2–5%".
      • Changed all variations to 'percent' for consistency. Freikorp (talk)
  • Books do not need an accessdate, as long as you've given the edition. See refs 8, 11, 13, 16, 31, 46, 55 (I may have missed some).
    • I didn't know that, but it makes sense. Removed. Freikorp (talk)

Thanks for the article, enjoyed reading it. Edgepedia (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  • You're welcome. Thanks so much for reviewing. Please let me know if I haven't addressed any concern adequately enough. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi. just following this up. Were my replies to your concerns adequate for you to support the nomination, or are there further concerns that you would like me to address? :) Freikorp (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Freikorp, got your message on my talk page; unfortunately, I'm going to be busy travelling for the rest of October, so the time I have limited. However, I have had a chance to watch the DVD over the last week and I have a couple of a minor points:
      • When I was watching I never heard the evil planet thing being referred to as the "Great Evil". The sleeve notes call this "a planet-sized sphere of supreme evil" and the "Making of ..." special feature calls it a "dark and powerful force of evil". When I read it I though that the "Great Evil" (with capitals) was named as such. Perhaps the simplest thing to do is to lose the capital letters!
      • My DVD sleeve notes say most of the events take place in 2257 (The fifth element (Liner notes). Pathé. 1997. P8920DVD. ). I can find sources on the internet for 2263, such as this one published in 2009; however by 2007 we have the 2263 date in the article and perhaps someone looked it up on wikipedia! Does this date come from elsewhere? Edgepedia (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, it's interesting that it says 2257 in the dvd sleeve; 2263 is taken from the film itself. When Korben wakes up from his 'nightmare', you can see the time and date on his alarm clock. 2:00am 18 March 2263. The alarm clock clearly comes into focus at exactly the 16 minute and 58 second mark (at least on my iTunes copy of the film). Not sure what to do about these conflicting primary sources, i'm happy to leave it as it is but maybe we could just give an estimated date, describing the date as the mid 23rd century of something? Freikorp (talk)
PS: Can I echo Squeamish's "don't be anxious" – it took two months of my first FA to pass! The article is now a lot better than when I last looked at it! Edgepedia (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry to be on your case about it, maybe I should switch to decaf lol. Freikorp (talk) 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Edgepedia. Just a friendly reminder about the review and also letting you know i'll be on vacation myself from 22 October until 2 November. I anticipate having no internet access on vacation (probably a good thing lol) so if you comment during this time I may not respond. Freikorp (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
<------ unidented
Got your message Freikorp. On the subject of the date of the film's events, I think that needs at least a reference in the article; You could use {{cite AV media | people=Besson, Luc (Director) | year=1997 | title=The Fifth Element | time=16 minutes 58 seconds | medium=iTunes | publisher=Gaumont}}. When sources conflict, I usually give both sources and say they conflict – this could help in stopping editors getting confused and changing the article when they find the "wrong" source. So in this case the reference would be something like The year is shown on a clock in the the film (at 16 minutes 58 seconds in the iTunes version), although it is given as 2257 on the DVD sleeve notes published by Pathé in 1997. Edgepedia (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thanks Edgepedia. Was this the only outstanding concern? Can you support the nomination now? :) Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Friekorp, please do not solicit declarations of support, as you have multiple times here. Reviewers are quite capable of deciding for themselves if they wish to explicitly declare their support (or opposition) re. promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi again Ian Rose. Apologies, I didn't realise asking whether my changes were good enough for the article to be supported or whether I needed to do more work was not OK, I won't do so again. And yes, i'll stop doubling up with the headers from now on also. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado[edit]

The proposer also asked me nicely to look again at this article. I have read it through from scratch and will be happy to support it again once the following points have been addressed:

  • Lead: It has been called the best and worst summer blockbuster of all time. I suggest "it has been called both the ..." as later in the article, to make it clearer that it is not one reaction being referred to.
  • Plot: divorcee: I don't see the relevance of mentioning this. It is presumably added to the script to explain why Dallas is living in a batchelor pad with a cat, but it plays no part in the plot or the rest of the film.
  • Effects: proprietary software: the wikilink refers to the difference between closed- and open-source software, but the reference is referring to Digital Domain's use of standard (including closed-source) packages as well as its own in-house software (that is my understanding of page 60 of the reference, not something I "know"). I think it will be clearer if we say "in-house software" here, or remove the wikilink
  • Soundtrack: The Fifth Element is amongst Besson's films that have been described as "intrinsically musical": this reads a bit clumsily, please rephrase, perhaps: "The Fifth Element is one of Besson's films which have been described as "intrinsically musical";" or say "among" instead of "amongst"

In this edit I have corrected the punctuation in "mixed or average reviews" and tweaked some source spacing for consistency. --Mirokado (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • All issues addressed. Thanks so much for your review. Hopefully the nomination will pass this time :). Freikorp (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That was quick!

  • In the update to Soundtrack: Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software was used by Digital Domain...: need another comma and "were" here: "Autodesk Softimage, Arete, Side Effect's Prisms, RenderMan, as well as in-house software, were used by Digital Domain..."

Supporting now. Good luck with the proposal. --Mirokado (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments support[edit]

Love this movie! Here's my review.

  • Budget - Why not give a footnote instead of hidden text? This will allow you to hedge a bit more, rather than being verifiable but possibly incorrect.
  • Really light on production information in the lead. It took 22 years... did anything happen aside from people being hired? I mean, you dedicate so much text to it in the body, but the lead is sorely lacking.
    • Added some information the lead about why it may have taken so long. Freikorp (talk)
  • it remained the highest-grossing French film at the box-office until the release of The Intouchables in 2011. - what's with giving the reference here? Per WP:LEAD, this should be referenced in the body.
  • but their compatriots determine to seize them for themselves. - perhaps a way of making it clear that the stones are the "them" in question?
  • Plot section is a bit overly detailed. I know less than 700 words is recommended, but a lot of the 640 words of the current plot summary are fat. Is it really pertinent that he was a radio call-in winner (rigged or not?). Is their "consummating their love" (or, really, that whole paragraph) plot relevant, or is it just dénouement? I can imagine that this plot summary could be trimmed to 550 words.
  • While I'm discussing the plot: you don't explain why the Great Evil is returning sooner than "300 years".
    • To the best of my knowledge (which is considerable on this subject) there is no explanation. It is widely considered by fans (and wikipedia users I might add) to be a source of confusion. Freikorp (talk)
      • In that case, let's not be that specific. "in several hundred years" gives some wiggle room without being inaccurate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • You seem to have trimmed this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes sorry I forgot to mention that. I think it would just be easier to leave it out, I know this article and if I say several hundred years IP's will just keep changing it to "300". Hopefully if it doesn't mention it at all there will be less disruption. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The book Science Fiction Film, published by Cambridge University Press, credited the film with exploring the theme of political corruption. - I'd expect the author to be the one we're supposed to mention in text, not the book. Mentioning only the book and publisher gives the impression that the book had no author. This goes for the rest of the journals etc. mentioned as well; these are ideas held by people, not necessarily the journals or the journals' editorial staff. Furthermore, this makes the mention of Susan Hayward and Phil Powrie appear WP:UNDUE, as they are the first authors actually named.
    • I have now specified authors as well as the book and journal. Freikorp (talk)
      • I'd probably trim the publishers though (Cambridge Uni. Press, etc.), but if you prefer them that's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmm, the only reason I added them was to give it some notability to the source, I mean 'Stefan Brandt' clearly isn't notable enough to have a wiki article, and neither is his book 'Subverting Masculinity'. I thought if I showed that the publisher was notable it would give some indication of why we should value his opinion - because a notable publisher thought it was worthy to print. Do you think this is unnecessary? I have no qualms with removing it, I just thought it serves a purpose of sorts. Freikorp (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
          • IMHO, people who are going to question the reliability and/or weight of the source are usually those who know enough to check the references section (where you have the publisher spelled out). That being said, I'm fine with the way things are now if you'd rather not remove the publishers, and I'm not aware of any policies against including them in-text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The love story within The Fifth Element was considered to be one of the main narratives in the film, and it faces the same deadline as the main storyline. - "was considered" begs the question "by whom". Just say "the authors considered it" or whatever.
  • The section #Related media is way too short and underdeveloped. It can probably be safely merged into the release section (actually; split off the legacy text as its own section; that should work, and allow you to incorporate these alternative media).
  • He states he was waiting to build a reputation for himself as a filmmaker before he commenced production of the film, so that he would be able to make it with creative control. - Well, after a sentence like that we'd expect to be introduced to one or more films that made Besson well enough known that he could take control. Instead we jump right into the budget, and only then do you mention a film he made.
    • Moved some info around so that information about the 1994 film Leon appears right after that statement. Freikorp (talk)
      • Reworked. Please check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • That's much better, cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Standardize whether your punctuation goes inside or outside of quotation marks.
  • Gaultier also borrowed designs from others to help create his effect. - any examples?
    • Not in the source quoted unfortunately. Text reads: "Gaultier explains that he pulls from past designs - not just his own - to create his effect." Happy to delete this mention entirely if that would be better than not being able to specify whose designs he borrowed. Freikorp (talk)
      • Important enough for the subject. Just was hoping that we could show and not simply tell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • He relies heavily on the use of orchestral textures and exotic influences, such as the oboe and strings heard as the surgeons prepare to regenerate Leeloo, and the pizzicato as she is reconstructed, as well as the shawm sounds as Leeloo tries to communicate with Korben after she falls into his taxi, and the Middle-Eastern unison strings as he tries to convince her to give herself up. - What a mouthful! can we split this, please?
    • I just deleted the second half of that very long sentence - there are enough examples without the second half anyway. Freikorp (talk)
  • The soundtrack section jumps around a bit. Content then sales information then content again. Perhaps a somewhat more organized presentation would be in order. Also, worth mentioning any of the review comments?
    • Reorganised and a reviewer comment added. Freikorp (talk)
      • Tried reorganizing... what do you think? Also, added two CN tags. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Looks good. I found a source for one of the cn tags. I'm confident that no source specifically backs up the statement: "Part One (titled Lucia di Lammermoor) and Part Two (titled The Diva Dance) of this piece are included as separate but consecutive tracks on the soundtrack" (other than listening to the soundtrack itself) so i've just removed that sentence and the tag with it. Freikorp (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Why not just cite the album itself? We're allowed to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Oh I didn't know that lol. Done, though i've never cited an album before so do feel free to check i've filed out enough parameters. Freikorp (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
              • Grand. I've done similar citations with some lists, so I knew it's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps clarify what "exported" film means.
    • Changed to "As of 2011 it still held the record for the French film with the highest foreign box office gross." Freikorp (talk)
  • which called him "the summer's most outrageous special effect" - LA Times or Time?
  • The case was dismissed in 2004 on the grounds that only "tiny fragments" of Giraud's artwork had been used - What about Jodorowsky?
    • Clarified it was "tiny fragments" of the comic, rather than specifically Giraud's artwork. Freikorp (talk)
  • Anybody else give feedback regarding this film? If you mention only Oldman, it comes across as undue weight.
    • Another user added Oldman's comments after I nominated the article for FAC. I'd be more than happy to remove this information on the grounds of undue weight, though i'll have a look for other actors opinions later. Freikorp (talk)
      • If you can get 'em, that'd be great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Finding this surprisingly difficult - found a basic quote from Willis and added it, will look for more. Freikorp (talk)
          • Having Jovovich or Maïwenn Le Besco would round this out (or Besson himself). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
            • The Ultimate Edition DVD contains featurettes with Tucker and Jovovich, both of whom speak fondly of their experiences working on the film. I was hoping to find something more specific, but i'm hoping this will be enough. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
              • Any direct quotes? You can cite the actual featurette. See Departures for an example of how that works (with the format system my co-author and I used; it can be adapted for this article easily) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
                • Done. Also have a look at my reply to the concern regarding the year the film was set in at the bottom of this discussion :) Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for both The Fifth Element and Money Talks. - be clear if this applies to both Tucker and Jovovich, or just one or the other.
    • I'm not 100% sure what the issue is here - i've reworded to "Conversely, Jovovich received a Razzie nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for his performances in both The Fifth Element and Money Talks." Does this address your concern? Freikorp (talk)
      • Excellent. Yes, the way you had positioned your subjects suggested (erroneously) that Jovovich could have been in Money Talks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The second disc provides various special features, focusing on visual production, special effects, fashion in the film, featurettes and interviews with Willis, Jovovich, and Tucker, featurettes on the four different alien races in the film, and a featurette on Diva Plavalaguna. - can we avoid having featurettes stated three times in a row?
  • The Ultimate Edition was praised for its special features. - by whom?
  • Suggest linking to newspapers and/or reviewers with articles.
    • In regards to what? Sorry i'm not sure what you mean here. Freikorp (talk)
      • i.e. DVD Talk has an article but is not linked (article could use some work, but that's not FAC relevant). The one that brought this to mind was LA Times, but it appears I forgot that you had already linked it previously. No need to worry about that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Wikilinked. Looks like the DVD talk article was created after I added the source to this article. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Any further details on the novelization (reviews? Changes in plots as mentioned in RSes? anything?)? How about the games? I'm sure they have reviews you can mention, at least one or two. I mean, you give sound bites for the DVD releases. (TV Tropes says that the PS1 game got on several "worst game of the year" lists... if we can cite that, it's fairly important).
    • Added two game reviews. You'll have to post a link to that TV Tropes article you're talking about if you want me to do anything about that; i'm not familiar with that website and I haven't heard anything else about these lists the game is apparently on. Freikorp (talk)
      • Not cite TV Tropes (its a Wiki, and non-reliable), but the fact. Gamespot has a review here (not familiar enough with WP:VG's RS guidelines to say off it's an RS or not here). IGN (RS) has a review. Game Revolution too (RS). Can't find anything for what TV Tropes claims, but those two (three?) reviews would certainly be plenty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I've now added two reviews for the game adaptation and one review (the only one I could find) for the racing game that is based on the film. I can't find a review for the novelisation from a reliable source (google books doesn't list any reviews of the book either [37]). Freikorp (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Why the discrepancy in film length? Infobox says 126 minutes, but Ebert says 127. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure how that happened - changed to 127. Freikorp (talk)
  • Duplicate links: Gary Oldman — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, i'll begin addressing these issues one at a time and will ping you when i'm done. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Crisco 1492. I've either addressed everything or requested clarification on what you were after. Feel free to strikethrough any resolved issues so I know what you're pleased with. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you been able to consult The Adventure and Discovery of a Film: The Story of The Fifth Element or Valérian: Les Extras de Mézières, tome 2: Mon cinquième élément? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • According to (non-RSes) these two books have information on how Besson approached Mezieres, and on what Besson intended the fifth element to be... might be important. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm certainThe Adventure and Discovery of a Film would prove very useful, i've previously looked into buying a copy. Unfortunately it was limited edition and is out of print. The cheapest I can find a copy for sale is $200 [38]; my fiancé would kill me if I spent that much money on a book lol. Neither my local public or university library has a copy. The other book is not available at any library near me either, though it is more affordable to buy; I don't relish the idea of having to buy it though, and if I ordered a copy it probably wouldn't arrive at my house for a couple weeks anyway as i'd have to order from overseas. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        • What about an inter-library loan? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I haven't looked into that. I might get a chance to go to the library and ask the day after tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Managed to get to the library today. I put in a written request for both books, I was told someone would call me when the book(s) had either come in or if they knew they couldn't get a copy. I was told it might take a week or longer. I'm not sure if Ian Rose is happy for this nomination to stay open just on the chance that a) they can get the books in and b) that said book would have useful information. Would it be a massive problem to just let the issue of comprehensiveness slide for the time being? I mean, the article isn't obviously deficit without said sources, and as I have a clear interest in this article I can assure you that if I ever get a copy of either of the books, I will do my best to improve this article with their information, regardless of whether the article is already promoted to featured status or not. Freikorp (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Comprehensiveness is part of the FAC criteria, so any objections on that count are prima facie actionable. How much a barrier to promotion it should be in this instance is therefore more in the hands of Crisco as an experienced film article editor/reviewer, than in mine as a FAC coordinator. No pressure, Crisco (honestly!) but if it's a stopper for you then given the time this has been open I'd be inclined to archive the nom until the books are obtained and worked into the article. If you think it does meet the criteria after all (but could simply be further improved with the additions) then we may still be on track for promotion shortly, pending image check and resolution of Nimbus' remaining points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
              • Despite what my students may try and tell you, I'm not evil enough to oppose over that. Yeah, it would be a great addition, but this is already one of the most comprehensive single sources on the internet. I can easily assume that Freikorp will add further information as it becomes available. Images below are dealt with too, so
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I hope that the book does become available. I doubt it would cause a fundamental rewrite of the article, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage (for me, at least). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The public library just called me. It might interest you to know that there wasn't a copy of either of those books in any library in Australia, which is precisely why my local library has decided to purchase The Story of The Fifth Element for their collection. As they have to order it from overseas it will probably take 2-4 weeks to arrive, and they told me they'd put it aside for me so that I can borrow it first. Not surprisingly they weren't interested in ordering the other one as it isn't in English. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I must say, the Australian library system sounds pretty damn good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, any of the special features on the DVDs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I used to own the original (no special features) version of the DVD; I now own the iTunes copy, which also has no special features. Thankfully, people have uploaded at least some of the special features from the Ultimate edition DVD to YouTube, hence why I was able to cite the interviews with Jovovich and Tucker in the 'Legacy' section. There are snippets for sure that could be added to the article (For example I was surprised to find out via Jovovich's special features interview that after 2 months of repeatedly bleaching her hair and dying it orange her hair started to fall out; she had to wear a wig in the second half of the film) but I don't recall hearing anything of vital importance. Was there a particular part of the 'Production' section that you think could use expanding with potential information from said special features? Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not exactly in a position to have the DVD features myself (Indonesia and all that). No, I am not aware of anything particularly important, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • K, so these "Comprehensiveness" questions are all I have left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nimbus[edit]

Very nearly a 'support' from me. There are two cites in the lead, should not be there per WP:LEADCITE as long as the facts are cited later. Gaultier does not use the hyphen according to his official website. On the fictional date of the film is a date of the first Egyptian scene not given on screen then a cutaway says '200 years later' or similar? Been a while since I've seen it. The Cornelius/Zorg choking scene seems to have been left out of the plot? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments. I have removed the two cites in the lead, and the hyphen in Gualtier's name. Yes, you're right - the movie opens to the text on screen "Egypt 1914". Then when it cuts to the future it says "300 years later", though Korben's alarm clock clearly states the year is 2263. How Luc Besson managed to contradict the date that badly is completely beyond me. This 'movie mistake' has proved quite annoying for me to work around. As for the choking scene - I had to leave most of the non-vital scenes in the film out of the plot in order to shorten in to 550 words. Freikorp (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree, the alarm clock is clearly visible. And I mean clearly. Screenshot. It's huge. And yes, the earlier text says 300 years. Screenshot. How about including this discrepency in the footnote, citing the film (of course). No screenshots, owing to copyright concerns, but at least text and time the text is shown (or the Mondoshawan makes its pronouncement). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I've reworded the reference after the year 2263 to take all this information into consideration, any better now? Freikorp (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Ping@Nimbus. Freikorp (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Well the date thing is covered now, perhaps it was deliberate?! I can't immediately learn where this was filmed, should be in the production section with a mention in the lead. The soundtrack infobox looks odd, it is not used in Blade Runner (a Featured Article) but is used at Blade Runner (soundtrack) at the top of the article where I would expect to see it.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmm good point about the location of filming not being specified - i'll look for a source for that. No-one's mentioned anything about the soundtrack info-box before. After looking up about 15 featured film articles I did note the majority of them indeed do not have info-box, though two of the ones I looked at did (Manhunter (film) and Hoodwinked!). Does the info-box present a big problem? While there are only 2 notable reviews of the soundtrack, I do like how the inbox conveys the review scores with just a glance, and in this case there is not a separate article for the film's soundtrack; if there was i'd be willing to ditch the info-box immediately. I'd prefer the inbox to remain unless doing so would cost me your support, in which case I would be willing to permanently remove it. Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox album states that the coding should appear at the top of the page, reading between the lines I guess it is only intended for use in album articles. My worry is that editors follow other Featured Articles, they may do the same citing this one as the precedent. The template could be used in a new soundtrack article in the same way as the Blade Runner example mentioned. Look forward to learning more about filming locations.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 14:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the inbox and added information on filming locations. Freikorp (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll change to support when all the sources have been confirmed as reliable by a source checker. I'm seeing current cite 92 as a dead link (70th Academy Awards). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yep it was dead for me too; I replaced it. Freikorp (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I thought Squeamish Ossifrage gave a source review already? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
The source in question was retrieved in July this year, and I double-checked everything was still live before nominating for FAC, so it looks like that source must have gone dead quite recently, but in any case it's fixed now. Freikorp (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I was referring to "I'll change to support when all the sources have been confirmed as reliable by a source checker.". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, righto. Yes, Squeamish Ossifrage did do a thorough source review. Is this issue resolved now Nimbus? Freikorp (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I read Squeamish Ossifrages review thoroughly, they had many points, some resolved, the collapsed dialogue box had an 'oppose' comment then later this changed to 'neutral' which I believe just related to the referencing, not the article as a whole (may be wrong). It is unfortunate that they have have not returned to close the reference review. My normal field of editing is aviation and I have a very good knowledge of what is and isn't considered a reliable source, we need a film article referencing expert in here to guide us. One website 'Encyclopedia of Fantastic Film and Television' seems to be a cross between a wiki and a one person self-published enthusiast site on reading the 'FAQ' there, is it a reliable source in the WP sense? I can't tell though I would not use a site like that myself for referencing. Sorry if this is causing pain but myself (and the FA delegates) would be much happier with a positive yes or no for WP:WIAFA 1c (Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Eofftv is the only source i'm using that I wasn't completely sure was reliable. I only used it as a last resort; when I couldn't find any other sources. When you asked for information on filming locations it was one of two sources I found stating scenes in the film were filmed in Mauritania. The other was a (much more reliable) article in Cinefex. I only had a snippet preview of said article from Google books [39] though that was enough to confirm that filming did take place there. I found a copy of said article on sale on eBay for $5, so I ordered it. The reason I wasn't using it as a source yet is because until the article arrives, I don't know what the article's title is, or its author. It would be a good guess that the author is Don Shay and the title is The Fifth Element, but I didn't want to assume. As the used source has now been questioned, I will add the Cinefex source despite its temporarily missing parameters, and will fill in the blanks once my copy of the article arrives. In the meantime i'll see if I can find alternate sources for the two other facts that Eofftv currently backs up. Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I found the correct author and title for the Cinefex article. I removed one of the other statements the Eofftv reference was backing up, it wasn't very significant anyway, and I found a reliable source for the last claim that reference backed up, so it's completely removed from the article now. Freikorp (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Note -- This has been open a long time but does appear to be close to reaching consensus so I'll allow some more time for Crisco's and Nimbus' comments to be resolved. In the meantime, did I miss an image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • If you have, I'll do it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Pls do. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Image review
  • File:Fifth element poster (1997).jpg - Needs the source to be stated, rather than just the copyright holder. Also, the "Article" parameter links to a dab page. That needs to be fixed. Also, technically this is a bit over the maximum of 100k pixels. Downsampling to 350px on the long side will fix that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Valerian FifthElement2.jpg and File:Valerian FifthElement1.jpg - Since these are being used in conjunction, to better meet the "Minimal use" criterion I think you should combine the two images into one, and downsample a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Corrected the odd formatting error (including a stray "}").
  • Is The DVD Journal really a Reliable Source? It sure looks amateur, and the "About Us" page doesn't inspire me with confidence.
    • Fair enough. I've removed the three inline citations that DVD Journal was used for. I couldn't find another reference for one of the statements the source backed up in the production sections, so I replace it with some new information. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref#29: page?
    • Well I don't really have a specific page per se, since a large portion of the comic is about the "character named S'Traks, who drives a flying taxicab through the congested air traffic of the vast metropolis on the planet Rubanis." The character and these facts don't all get introduced at the same time if I remember correctly (I don't have acces to the book currently). Does this really need a page number? Or for that matter, does it need a source at all? Freikorp (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, other citations to this source give page numbers, so this one appears to be an omission. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I've just removed the source entirely; it wasn't really needed considering that the fact that S'Traks drives a taxi through the planet Rubanis in the comic is still backed up by the source used at the end of the next sentence, which states Korben's character was inspired by S'Traks. Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Are Thierry Arbogast and KEG FX appropriate sources? Are there not other sources that report the awards?
    • The Thierry Arbogast reference is no longer needed, so I removed it. I added it before I found the source that backs up all the Cesar awards nominations and winners. I haven't been able to find a more reliable source than KEG FX for the Saturn Award. The Saturn Awards official website doesn't list the previous nominations for best special effects: [40] IMDb and Movie Collection back it up, but I don't think they're any more reliable. It's the recipients offical webpage, so I was hoping it would be accepted. Given the circumstances, do you think it could be? Freikorp (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • You might get away with it since it's strictly factual data, but another source would be batter. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Guessing these two aren't reliable either, but it's worth asking: Awards and Winners Cinetaka Freikorp (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The first one's user-generated, and says at the bottom of the page that it gets some of its content from Wikipeida, so it's definitely out. The second one, I'm not sure—I think it's in Portuguese. I wonder if there's a Portuguese speaker who could tell us if it's a RS or not. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • It is Portuguese. On closer inspection the website appears to be some form of movie rental site, and the awards list looks remarkably similar to the one at IMDb (not exactly the same, in a very slightly different order and it doesn't contain two of the awards that IMDb lists). I wouldn't bet that it is reliable. Hoping you'll let me get away with the reference I currently have. Freikorp (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Translations of non-English titles would be nice
    • Done. I haven't bothered to translate "Das fünfte Element" or "Le Cinquième élément", as I think that's a bit condescending. But let me know if you'd like me to do that. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't call it condescending—Wikipedia serves a worldwide audience, many of whom live in places where it's unlikely they'd be familiar with any amount of French or German. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise ref formatting looks fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar system. Its development took almost five years and is a story full of false starts, lucky breaks and bureaucratic infighting.

I'm not exactly sure what happened to the last FA process on this. Everything seemed to be going fine, then all the reviewers wandered off and then it was closed.

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Referencing errors

  • There are lots of errors in the format of the references. Refs 28, 31, 34, 36, 40, 46, 47, 50, 57, 58, 50, 92 and 103 are not linked to the bibliography correctly. Also ref 46 says "Bowen 1991", ref 34 "Brown 1999" and some refs have "Hanbury Brown". Can you check them. User:Graham Beards (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Maury, if you install Ucucha's script to check for errors in Harvard references, it'll highlight such problems in red - makes searching and fixing them a lot easier. GermanJoe (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
All fixed.Another useful script! Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions need copyediting
  • File:Hugh_Dowding.jpg: date link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, can you please be specific what captions need what copyediting? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Lead caption needs a hyphen; Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion; RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated; generally overusing the word "ample" in captions; Mk III is a bit clunky, as is Dowdy; magnetron needs conversion; Mk VI and the first Displays image have grammar issues; generally inconsistent in the use of "wingtip" vs "wing tip". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
"Lead caption needs a hyphen" - it does? Where?
"Early efforts needs hyphenation and conversion" - hyphen where? 6.7m is not an actual measure, its referring to the frequency band.
"RFD 1.5 and ASV emerges are incorrectly punctuated" - how so.
Maybe you should just make these changes? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Reviewers are not required or expected to edit candidate articles. At the moment there are 49 articles on the list, often there are more. There is a shortage of editors prepared to review FACs and there would be fewer if we asked them to do this. Sometimes reviewers will be generous with their time and talents and copy edit candidates. But this is a bonus that should not be requested. User:Graham Beards (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
But I am honestly at a loss as to how to address these issues. Most of them I don't really understand. What should I do? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
For conversions see Template:Convert which is already used in the article. Generally, the image legends are way too wordy and are causing some problems such as the redundant "This image shows...". Check for compound adjectives like "Mk. IV equipped Beaufighter" which should be "Mk. IV-equipped Beaufighter". User:Graham Beards (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't convert wavelengths; they are like boat classes, 5.5 meter boats are not 5.5 meters long nor is a 5.5 meter boat an 18 foot boat. Even US sources measure them in metric units. The other two are completed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've not received any specific input on the captions, so I've edited every-but-one for brevity. I left the physical layout description as-is because I think it's key to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


  • I've reviewed all of the changes that Maury's made since the last nomination and am satisfied that the article meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Note - Please check that the use of bold type as in "This led to Hanbury Brown's work on the Mark IVA" conforms with the manual of style. And, I'm still concerned about the image captions; as they stand some will require citations. I was alluding to this above when I commented on the length of the captions. User:Graham Beards (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I bold terms if they are the titles objects of the sub-section they appear in, or alternate names for the same. This is so that links to those sub-sections appear as fully-formed sub-articles. Is this not correct? As to the captions, can you be super-specific as to the ones you'd like to see addressed? Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


A large article with many technical aspects and units, difficult to get right. I've read most of the way through and found it fairly heavy going.
Frankly I'm not sure all the convert tags add or hinder clarity.
Unit conversions are a requirement, they were not the problem. Lots of figures in a technical article is unavoidable but they can be controlled (does the reader need to know the exact values?).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

*Lead, word repetition, 'development' used twice in the second sentence, 'Early development'? Perhaps just 'development would be better.

Indeed, fixed.

*'On the "Beau"' seems too informal.

Fair enough, fixed.

*Luftwaffe is not linked (first instance), also 'altitude'.

Fixed and fixed.
  • '1.5 m wavelength (~193 MHz)', what is 'm'? Metres? What is MHz?
Yes and yes...
Great, though looking at it again wavelength or metre wavelength would be a better link.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I went with option 2, simply because I think it looks better.
Wavelength has been unlinked?! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

*None of the many persons and establishments mentioned in this article feature in the lead. There is room for a fourth paragraph.

Hmmm, that's an interesting thought! Ok, let me know what you think of the addition.
Much better, there is a grammar problem (missing 'to'?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Took me a while to find that! Fixed.

*The image captions are lengthy and would benefit from wikilinking the objects and people in them (Hurricane, Heyford, Bawdsey Manor, Dowding etc).

Done, but I did not do the wikilinking because that's better in the body imho.
It's very common practise in Featured Articles to repeat wikilinks of objects, people and places in image captions, it is encouraged. Moon is a good example. With a long article people tend to read the lead (which should summarise the whole article), the infobox and wikilinked captions. Looking for the object links in the body text is inconvenient and frustrating, especially if there is no link there. Your call. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've never liked it but who am I to argue with the MOS?! I'll work these in over the next couple of days. Actually, done!

*More word repetition, 'Henry Tizard, whose Tizard Committee... How about Henry Tizard, whose Committee...?

Could 'had to be moved from aircraft to aircraft for testing' become 'had to be moved between aircraft for testing'? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

*Mixed tenses 'its Rolls-Royce Kestrel engines had a well-insulated ignition system which give off minimal electrical noise.' 'Gave off' perhaps?

Fixed - that one was aggressive auto-correct.

*Aircraft serial numbers should be italicised as it is effectively their name (MOS:ITALIC), aviation project convention which follows the ship examples.

Still a few remaining in the text. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking... can you point them out? I must be blind... ok I think I got them all now.
  • None of the footnotes are cited, some refer to pages in used references but they need citations as used in the text.
Sorry, I missed this first time around. Actually you cannot use linked FN's in notes, at least I'be never managed it. The template-in-the-ref appears to drive the parser nuts.
A technical problem that could probably be resolved with help, I avoid all templated referencing formats myself. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
One footnote appears to refer to images (formatted with external links), images can not be used for citations (even though we know that London buses are indeed red!). Other footnotes still unsourced (apparent editor synthesis). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no 'See also' section or navbox for related subjects.
Any suggestions? I rarely add these to my articles - laziness, not any dislike of them.
Yes, Air warfare of World War II, History of Radar, Radar in World War II and European theatre of World War II are four subjects that readers might like to visit. A navbox could be produced linking World War II airborne radar types from Category:World War II radars, divided into nationality groups.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Still no radar navbox. Castles in the sky is related surely? Does this article not come within the scope of WP:AVIATION? Template:Aviation lists is used in every article as a jumping point for readers who might want to find out more. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there any mention of this system or the development of AI in the Flight magazine online archives (exhaustion of sources)?
I'll never know... at least until Flight changes their search engine to something created this century. Try a search on the topic, and you'll see what I mean. The ones that are in here are generally the most complete histories, written by the people actually involved. Some of these required me to contact the original authors as copies were not available on this side of the pond. I also had to develop an algo to convert Bowen's page numbers for Google Books, because mine is a different copy and I want to make sure I was pointing people to an available source. Although here are some "review" sources, like White and Zimmerman, I've found that every other source I looked at (there were dozens) were essentially clipped versions of these. White, for instance, largely follows Bowen, while Zimmerman does more compare-and-contrast. Generally I'm not sure there is much more out there, I spent maybe two months collecting resources and discarded the majority during the process. Consider this for instance, which is largely content-free, yet uses many of the same images!
I found the same page and a few others, it is laden with facts, is a reliable source and can be cited (provides another source that readers can read online).Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an oversize image of a DH Mosquito to illustrate its antenna, could it be edited to crop and highlight this feature and show it at normal thumb size?
I was convinced to leave this one larger specifically because a previous reviewer complained that there was no reason for all images to be thumb size and that making this one larger would improve the article. I think I agree with the logic, so I'm inclined to leave this one as is.
Disagree with that logic and it remains your call, it looks odd to me apart from not clearly illustrating the detail it is supposed to. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

*Why were the large windows of the Avro Anson a benefit for testing? I couldn't immediately find it in the adjacent text, just curious.

Because the Anson found itself mostly used for ASV development and testing minimum range of the AI sets. Both tasks required the operators to look out once the radar's minimum range had been reached, and large windows always help in that regard.
Struck as the claim has been removed, appeared to be editor opinion without cited mention in the text. Surely the crews would be squinting out of the windscreen looking dead ahead for their tracked target? Perhaps that aspect needs clarifying. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Lots of points and questions but all aimed at improving the article. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Does any of this equipment exist in physical form in museums? Are there images available (or a Commons link to an airborne radar equipment category)? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(let me know if I missed any... maybe re-start the list for clarity?) Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

All fixed Nimbus! Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, my replies are missing, I still have the edit conflict window open and will leave the PC on overnight! WP software could do with an upgrade to show that the other person is typing as Facebook does in live chat. I will try to sort it out tomorrow. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Added missing edit conflict comments. If you sign with four tildes after each comment we will know who is commenting. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

For clarity I'm going to restart the list. I think I have addressed everything except:

  1. Still looking for advice on cites-in-notes.
  2. The Flight example has a single mention of AI, in passing. I see nothing in this article that suggests it should be included for any reason. I'm hesitant to add links for the sake of adding links. Am I missing you intension here?
  3. As to images, I have discussed the matter with several people. The only person that had a good image of the Pye strip refused to release under a CC-ish licence. Norman Groom released all his images under CC-by-SA, but because he didn't use the specific terminology "CC-by-SA" it has been refused, and now he won't have anything more to do with the Wiki Commons as a result. The RAF Museum does not appear to have a Mk IV, nor the Duxford Radio Society.
  4. Anything else I missed?

Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment (point 1)

  • Check out the notes in Death on the Rock. I have no experience with this particular style, but seems like this article uses your reference style with slightly reformatted footnotes. GermanJoe (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The gurus on the Village Pump sent me in the right direction. All the notes are now properly reffed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Note I believe all the issues raised in this and previous FACs have now been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments. Temporary oppose It's likely we'll get enough copyediting help to push this over the hump, but we've got a ways to go. I make a suggestion below for the next step. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "Watt", "Watson-Watt": the argument can be made either way, since he adopted the hyphenated name in 1942, but be consistent.
  • "Type 316A "giant acorn" vacuum tubes": I changed this to "Type 316A large acorn vacuum tubes", after doing some Google searching, but I'm just guessing ... if Western Electric called their product a Giant Acorn, then capitalize it. While we're on the subject ... someone has steered you wrong on quote marks, and it's getting tedious fixing them all. Some are ambiguous: for instance, does "Taffy" Bowen have quote marks because he picked up that nickname in the military but wasn't generally known that way? (Then use his real name.) Did people generally know him that way? (Then drop the quote marks.) Are these the kind of quote marks that postmodern writers liberally scatter in their prose, to avoid the impression that they take themselves or anything they write too seriously? (Take responsibility for your word choices.) Generally, so-called scare quotes suggest that some people, but not everyone, used the given name or concept ... but how is the reader to know how many people used it, or why some people didn't? One rule of thumb: use capitals, not scare quotes, for proper nouns. Fixing scare quotes is hard for a copyeditor to do ... I don't have access to most of the sources ... so please get to work on those, and I'll keep this page watch listed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
I had no idea I was a post-modernest! I feed the need to purchase a beret. In any event, I removed almost all the scare quotes, leaving those around nicknames, direct quotes and references. As to nicknames, I looked over the MoS and several other sources, and could not find anything one way or the other, so I went with the most common format on the wiki, to quote them. I believe everything else has been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm afraid there's more here than I'm going to have time to do, but I made a good start and I'm hoping that will allow someone to finish up. I got down to ASV emerges, and it's looking good so far. The writing is lively. Below where I left off, I believe there's more quoted text than just nicknames, direct quotes and references (although maybe some of those are direct quotes, and I can't tell). For instance, "all hell broke loose" was a cliché (unless I misunderstood and it was a direct quote ... but clichés don't serve as particularly memorable quotes). I went with something blander, but you may want to play around with it. And there's still a problem with the nicknames. Bowen is one of your sources, and skimming the text at, he uses a lot of nicknames. For instance, the only mention of Walters in your article is sourced to Bowen: "... the Yagi antenna design, which had been brought to the UK when the Japanese patents were sold to the Marconi Company. "Yagi" Walters developed a system for AI use using five Yagi antennas." What are the odds that a guy who was nicknamed after an antenna kept the nickname throughout his life? If you want to mention Walters, please find out the name he actually used, the one that would go at the top of his Wikipedia article if he had one. He's owed that much if his contribution is important enough to mention.
Believe it or not, "all hell broke loose" is a direct quote - IIRC its quoted that way in the book (ie, in quotes). I'll try to find Walter's full name, I have failed to do so to date. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll give this another look after you get another one or two reviewers here. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Replying to a request; I've struck my "temporary oppose". Comment: one change I made was reverted after I stopped working on this. This edit reintroduced two mistakes (one has been fixed by another editor), and also reverted "when they closed the distance, the ships mistook them for the enemy and launched" to "and then closed the distance to see "all hell broke loose" as the ships launched". The edit summary was correct, and one fix would have been to change "the enemy" to "an enemy" ... but it failed to mention that it was reverting on the point I had just been discussing (see above). When you revert on the point under discussion, please say you're reverting in the edit summary ... at a minimum, don't say only that you're fixing something else. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I am confused... I did say I was reverting (didn't I) and I only reverted that single edit (I think). Am I missing something here? I'm happy to change this again, but I'm not sure what the problem is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You've fixed it, not a problem now. I've checked the new edits, everything is still good down to where I stopped, ASV emerges. I've also checked the quoted material in the rest of it ... that all looks good too, except don't put quote marks around a block quote, per WP:MOS. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, I await your return! Ironically that fancy blue-background version of the BLOCK does put in quotes even if you don't... Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I've pinged Nimbus227; with or without a response, I'll do more work on this soon. - Dank (push to talk) 05:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures Rising[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the American television sitcom Temperatures Rising which aired on the ABC network from 1972 to 1974. The series, which I think is very funny, has an interesting history in that it went through three different formats and cast line-ups during its two year run. I rewrote the article several months ago so that a more comprehensive history of the show is presented. I would now like to bring the article up to feature length status. This is my second attempt to do so. The initial attempt was unsuccessful due to a lack of support. So please help if you can by offering some suggestions on what I can do to improve it. Jimknut (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ɱ

While I agree with Nikkimaria and Ian Rose that articles should generally go through GA first, I'll make comments here. My first FAC was closed due to few comments and I'd hate to see it happen many more times.

They may be right but I'm someone who thinks along the lines of David O. Selznick: "There are only two kinds of class: First class and no class."
So I think with my Briarcliff articles, although I'm willing to take the steps along the way for them to reach such a class as FA. It makes the process easier.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Temperatures Rising.jpg should have a better description of the image and of the source, and the source link should be to here. The description page should also say who the copyright owner is, if that can be found.
    • I reworked this so that the fair use description reads like the second season photo. I do not know who the original publisher is.
I'm going to add back in the URL, that helps people find the image at its original source.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • commons:File:Cleavon Little Jayne Meadows Temperatures Rising 1972.JPG wasn't actually published, posting on Ebay or an image hosting site doesn't mean that it's published. This means that the PD-Pre1978 license doesn't apply. Perhaps try to find another.
    • This one was already being used in the article when I began the upgrades. Since it is in Wiki Commons I think it's safe to use, although I don't think it's as crucial to the article as the first and second season cast photos.
That won't pass any FA review anywhere. Try to find another license, otherwise it should be deleted. Just being on Commons doesn't mean anything.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Photos from around 1973 usually aren't, even with the details that you list on the image description page.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Other remarks

  • There were a lot of odd spaces that I'm removing, and I added portals to this. I'll see what other changes I can make.--ɱ (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, did a few more things. The prose and style looks good, as does the formatting. I'm going to look at the references next.--ɱ (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You have three block quotations that should be put inside some template. There are a few options, perhaps the best lies at Template:Quote. I checked most of your references, but only the ones to web sources, there are quite a few print ones. Of the web references, they all appear well-cited and formatted; I doubt I can find problems with your references.--ɱ (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I had these in quote boxes but the person that peer reviewed the article said they look intrusive. Hence I took them out and added them into the main flow of the text. The bulk of my sources came from the Los Angeles Times. These actually can be accessed on-line for a fee or for free through the Los Angeles County Library system. I did the latter. Also, since the LA Times is a major newspaper, many public libraries will probably carry it on microfilm. (Furthermore, I copied the articles and saved them as files on my computer so anyone that really wants to do so can request me to email these to him or her.)
That quote template doesn't really remove the text from the rest of the prose like other quote templates. I also believe that quote templates are preferred in articles over the simple formatting in place right now.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Under the "Reviews" section, did the LA Times call it the "worse show" or the "worst show"?--ɱ (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
"Worst." I fixed it.
  • After reading through the article, it's clear that the prose is very well written, there are abundant inline citations, appropriate wikilinks, etc. I don't think that the article should be split into two different shows, it's clear that it was one show that underwent recasting and a slight name variant. Splitting the article would just make readers' understanding of that poorer. As well, the article only has 12kb of readable prose, which is far below norms for splitting an article. I'll give my official support of this article once the above points are addressed.--ɱ (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, although the show has not been officially released on DVD there are episodes available from private collectors. A few have been posted on YouTube. In my opinion, one of the funniest is "Ellen's Flip Side" Take a look and have a laugh … or two … or three … (Nancy Fox is extremely cute and adorable).Jimknut (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would add back the quote boxes. This show reminds me of one that aired around the same time, Fawlty Towers. That show's quite good, and is available on Netflix among other sites. Check it out if you can.--ɱ (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen Fawlty Towers. It is indeed a very funny show. Getting back to Temperatures Rising, however, I changed the first two quotes by putting them into boxes. The third I added into the main text. Jimknut (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic. I do think that Template:Quote might look better, and will have it more similar to how you had it before. An example of that (which I just put on) is at Edward W. Hooper.--ɱ (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Reworked again using Template:Quote. It does look better. Jimknut (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

() Okay, now after a thorough review of the article, I can give my full support of this becoming a Featured Article. Good job.--ɱ (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll actually stress this-very well done, it's all written and sourced very well. No complaints here; this well deserves to become a FA.--ɱ (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I think the article is meticulously written and properly referenced. There may be additional comments, but it looks great and should be promoted to FA.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Jimknut (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – Contains everything I would expect to find in a featured article on a television show, clear, well written, broadly referenced. One tiny point: I don't think WP encourages the use of "The" at the start of section headings, though I can't find anything to that effect in the MoS. Perhaps you might consider saying just "First series" and "Second series". Tim riley talk 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I made the changes that you suggested. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I've made a minor tweak to one of the images, moving it from left to right. This is as per MoS, and also stops the bullet points appearing through the image. Nicely put together. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
You're correct, the article does look better with the second season cast image on the right. Thanks for changing this and thanks for the support. Jimknut (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Have I missed the source review? Graham Beards (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I made some comments under 'Other Remarks'. I didn't really find any problems.--