Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Geiger–Marsden experiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Geiger-Marsden experiments, the experiments by which scientists discovered that every atom contains a nucleus. Kurzon (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Obviously a lot of work has been put into the article, but there are a number of issues. There is an awful lot of uncited text—often entire paragraphs—and it's not clear how a lot of the sources in the "Bibliography" are used (many are not cited in the body). The lead (per WP:LEADLENGTH) is far shorter than one would expect from a 19kb article. Is this your first FAC? I strongly recommend withdrawing and taking the article to WP:PR and WP:GAN before submitting it here again. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Fremantle Prison[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the World Heritage listed former Australian prison – built by convicts, for convicts, between 1851 and 1859, and used as a prison until 1991. Unlike my other FA, GA, and A-class articles, the challenge was generally not in finding in finding reliably sourced information, but in distilling a vast quantity into an encyclopaedic article. This article has improved considerably since the 2006 nomination (old revision), and I believe it now meets the criteria. I look forward to your comments, and hope to eventually bring the whole set of articles to good or featured topic status. - Evad37 [talk] 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Boys Don't Cry (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): BenLinus1214talk 01:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Boys Don't Cry, a 1999 independent romantic drama film which dramatizes the life of Brandon Teena, a trans man who was raped and murdered in 1993. A couple years ago, it passed a GA review with flying colors, and I believe that it meets the FA criteria. The article has fleshed-out Production, Style, Themes, Release, Reception, and Controversy sections (exactly what I think an article on a movie should be). I am aware that the article has been subject to pronoun-related vandalism. This seems to have gone down as of late, but if it resurfaces, I think page protection might be a good idea. BenLinus1214talk 01:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Bollyjeff (talk), User:Dr. Blofeld (talk)

This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the world. During its first FAC, some reviewers cited excessive length. We have now moved non-essential elements into sub-articles, making it very manageable. I believe it is FA quality. Khan is turning fifty this year, and I would like to see this have a shot at TFA. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

Support — I supported in the previous FAC. With a lot of copyediting and a second PR done, the article looks even better. Just a couple of comments though

  • A line or two on Paheli can be included as it was well received by critics. Just a suggestion though. Your call, Bollyjeff.
  • Personally, I wouldn't want to see any possible deadlinks in this article. Archiving of all the references (excluding those from books) would be great.

James A. Garfield[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a President of the United States. James Garfield is almost forgotten today but for the manner in which he met his death. Yet in 49 years he rose from poverty (the last president born in a log cabin) to the White House. He did much in those 49 years, and possibly could have done more if he had been spared for four more.Wehwalt (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support It is a very thorough, well-written article. Especially for a person who barely held the office which brought him fame, it contains great detail, yet pertinent information Spartan7W § 01:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

  • until his death by assassination later that year. - By definition, an assassination (otherwise it's an attempted assassination) causes the death of the target. I'd nix "death by" from this sentence.
Nixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Garfield, James's father, had been born in Worcester, New York, but came to Ohio to woo his childhood sweetheart, Mehitabel Ballou, only to find her married. - there are several minor clauses here. I'd try simplifying.
Simpled.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Illness forced Garfield to return home - how long after he started working the canal boats?
Added (6 weeks).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What year is that image of Lucretia?
Those photos from the Brady-Handy collection don't have dates more precise than a range of years, unfortunately, so "in the 1870s" is as close as we can get. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Among those named were Vice President (and former House Speaker) Schuyler Colfax, Grant's second-term running mate (Massachusetts Senator Henry Wilson), the current Speaker, Maine's James G. Blaine, and Garfield. - Perhaps use semi colons instead of commas where necessary to differentiate between entrees in the list?
I'm fairly traditional American English when it comes to semi-colons, one per sentence. I've restructured a bit so commas are used to separate each entry.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • with Peskin writing "Did Garfield lie? - who's Peskin?
I've added the first name, but I think the first part of the sentence makes it pretty clear he's a Garfield biographer.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The second mention of him (where you introduced him in the version I reviewed) should be reworked now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Done that.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any celebration was short lived, as Garfield's youngest son, Neddie, suddenly fell ill with whooping cough shortly after the congressional election in October, and soon died. - you just mentioned that the election was in October. Do you need to do so again?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Garfield's appointment of Thomas Lemuel James as Postmaster General infuriated Conkling, who demanded a compensatory appointment for his faction, such as the position of Secretary of the Treasury. - If you're going to talk about James in detail, might not be worth mentioning in the first paragraph
The battle was really over Robertson, though plainly having James as Postmaster General (another really plum patronage position) didn't make Conkling happy. I've played with it a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Standardize: Western Hemisphere or western hemisphere?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Among those who were in the station was Robert Lincoln, who sixteen years before had watched his father die from an assassin's bullet. - Is this all that pertinent to Garfield?
I think people are interested in the common links among the four assassinated presidents. Ever see the card you could buy with all the ones between Lincoln and Kennedy?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps... I'll defer to other reviewers on this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In a chaotic trial in which Guiteau often interrupted and argued, and his counsel used the insanity defense, due to his odd character, the jury found him guilty on January 5, 1882, and he was sentenced to death. - Could this be simplified a bit?
    • Should be better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There are about ten duplicate links. I'd check them and see which are really needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I trimmed a few, but left sold where the duplicates were widely spaced. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Brilliant piece of prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, and for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:James_Abram_Garfield_Signature.svg: source link is dead
  • File:Garfield-at-16.jpg needs US PD tag; same with File:Lucretia_Garfield_-_Brady-Handy.jpg, File:Greenback.jpg, File:Left_Puck.jpg
  • File:Garfield_Monument1.JPG needs to identify copyright status of the sculpture itself, same with File:James_Abram_Garfield_Monument,_San_Francisco.jpg
  • File:Garfield_assassination_engraving_cropped.jpg: source links are dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Garfield-casket.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review. I've fixed the monuments so far.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
All done but the signature, the engraving, and the casket. Those will take a bit more research.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Those last three should be resolved now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – comprehensive and a really good read. A few minor quibbles, not affecting my support:

  • Education, marriage and early career
    • "and as a school teacher" – is it usually two words in AmEng?
    • "janitor" – a link would be a kindness to non-Americans
    • "Westerner, was liked" – missing a "he" before "was", I think
  • Under Buell's command
    • Last para has three "Garfields" in three consecutive sentences. You might advantageously lose at least one of the second and third.
    • "friction in the Garfield marriage, which Lucretia graciously overlooked" – I don't quite follow this: if there was friction, how could she overlook it?
  • Reconstruction
    • "Ulysses S. Grant" – already linked earlier
  • Tariffs and finance
    • "gold standard" – ditto
  • Crédit Mobilier scandal; Salary Grab
    • "winning with only 57 percent of the vote" – the reader (at least this one) naturally asks what his earlier percentage of the vote had been.
  • Cabinet and inauguration
    • "a nemesis of MacVeagh" – was he really a nemesis ("a person who or thing which avenges, punishes, or brings about someone's downfall; an agent of retribution" – OED) rather than merely an enemy?
Toned down to "opponent".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Foreign policy and naval reform
    • "Great Britain" – one realises that the importance of the "little group of isles beyond the wave" is not what it once was, but surely we still count among "major geographic features and locations", not requiring a blue link?
      Delinked. As bright now shines Great Britain’s rays as in King George’s glorious days.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • "any settlement that restore the previous status quo" – either "restored" or "would restore"?
      Edit in haste, repent at leisure. Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. This article plainly meets all the FA criteria, in my view. The prose is a pleasure, the proportions and balance judicious, the sourcing wide and thorough, and the images excellent (even the one of the incomparably hideous Baltimore & Potomac station). Tim riley talk 12:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for a thorough review and support. We shall work through these most helpful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks from me, also. I've addressed everything Wehwalt didn't get to already. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Jarrow March[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing revolutionary about the 1936 Jarrow march; it was the polite, constitutional action of a town brought to destitution by 1930s economic policies. They came to London, presented their case, were fobbed off with tea and sympathy, and quietly went home. Yet the march became one of the defining images of the decade, and greatly influenced post-war policies towards full employment – at least until the 1980s. But that's another tale. My thanks to some careful peer reviewers who have watched over the article's preparation and made numerous helpful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I was one of the peer reviewers and had my say there. It is an excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Wehwalt. Also had my say at the peer review. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment.
  • Alt text. None of the photographs have alt text.
  • Alt text isn't a FAC requirement. Opinions differ as to its usefulness; I am a sceptic and no longer include it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll follow up with a more thorough review. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your interest in the article. Any further comments will be very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • You have the unitalicised "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online edition", but the italicised "Who's Who online edition". I'd aim for consistency, unless you have a good reason to do something different for these two
  • Neither should be italicised, since in both cases the source is the website version, not the book. Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN9: "et al": shouldn't you have this italicised?
  • My view is that this tag is used so often in English that, like for example "etc", it no longer needs italicising. If the Great Riley says otherwise I will defer to him. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN18: Comma after author
  • FN21: I have a feeling there should be some italicisation around at least some part of "The Guardian Housing Network"
  • Slightly tricky one, this, as the source is not the newspaper but a site run by the newspaper. I have compromised by putting the paper's title in italics. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN22: I think you mean 5 November 1932
  • FN29, 42 & 89: Should be comma after author, not full stop
  • FN75: is there a reason you have a book here, rather than in the Sources section?
  • Well. it's an unpaginated ebook, so the normal short citation "Parker, p. ???" doesn't work. I though the direct link to the page would be the most helpful way of dealing with this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN111: Are you sure you retrieved it in 1936?
  • Yes, my private timelord arranged this on my behalf. But someone else has "corrected" it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Skidelsky: for consistency you should add UK to Harmondsworth, as you have done for the other two Penguin books

That's it for the moment, but I'll go over it again later to make sure I've not missed anything. – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for picking these things up. All sorted now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – Another peer-reviewer: happy then and happy now. The prose is compellingly readable, the illustrations are admirable, the text is balanced and thoroughly sourced and cited. Plainly of FA quality – as well as thought-provoking, and touching. Happy to support, on St George's Day, an article that does justice to the Englishmen and Englishwomen concerned. – Tim riley talk 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Sculpture name should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Milan – San Remo[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 Milan - San Remo cycling race, one of the most important one-day races in the cycling calendar. The race has had a controversial few years with several changes to the classic route, but this year's race was successful enough that future events will use the route again. I successfully took it to Good Article status a couple of weeks ago. This is my first attempt at nominating an article for Featured Article status and I'm doing so with some nervousness: I hope I've got the process right! Relentlessly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. This is the best and most complete cycling article I've read about a race. The references are varied and pertinent. The prose is top-notch. The race is notable too: it is one of the five Cycling Monuments, the most important races on the calendar besides the Grand Tours. It deserves to be on the front page. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Jacobus Anthonie Meessen[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about something different for me. Instead of being about the cinema of the Indies, it's about a little known photographer from the 19th century Dutch East Indies, active in both Padang and Batavia. I think you will find it an interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • At the FAC level, {{ill}} templates should be replaced by a link to a stub.
    • That wasn't an issue with Departures nor many of Curly Turkey's articles, nor have I ever read a policy/MOS page regarding that. That being said, there's only one, and it's an inhabited place, so a stub is on its way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hm, I'm disappointed I didn't catch it in Departures when I reviewed it. I'll go talk with Curly, if he's using it ... I've rarely seen it at FAC. The two issues are Humpty-Dumptyism (no one uses (nl) to mean "you'll find a Dutch version of this article over here" in print, that I'm aware), and the general idea at FAC that articles should be approaching their finished state ... that is, if we've got something in article space intended to serve as a red flag that there's work to be done, then the work should be done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Moot in this case, as we now have a stub. I must say though that I disagree with the statement "if we've got something in article space intended to serve as a red flag that there's work to be done, then the work should be done"; the same could be said of red links, and a lack of red links is not a FA criteria on the English Wikipedia (now, the Indonesian Wikipedia...).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I have no problem with a reasonable number of red links at FAC. The red flag (for me, because it sticks out like a sore thumb) is the (nl). - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I have to disagree quite strongly. I've turned quite of few of those bracketed links into articles—I translated at least three that I saw at Charlie Hebdo shooting (Coco (cartoonist), Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011, and Mustapha Ourrad) that I wouldn't have even thought of writing if the interwiki link weren't there. Crisco work in this area probably outstrips mine severalfold. Wikipedia's a perpetual work-in-progress, and we should be encouraging people to get involved by providing plausible redlinks wherever we can. {{ill}}s are enriched redlinks in that they provide at least some info to people who can either read those other languages or make good use of Google Translate, and give editors something to work with that a plain redlink does not. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
            • All reasonable points. What about the two points I made? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
              • The first point should be dealt with at the template talk page—I don't know what a better solution might be that doesn't overly clutter the page. The other has no bearing on an FAC: we don't evaluate an article on the quality of its sub- or linked articles, and removing a legitimate redlink doesn't improve the yet-uncreated article—it hides the "problem" rather than improving it, and discourages editors from creating it. Since ukiyo-e's promotion I've been going slowly through the redlinks and {{ill}}s. There are now only a handful left, and some (Kanae Yamamoto) have become quite substantial. Without that {{ill}} I likely wouldn't have created it at all. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
                  • And in Departures we ended up filling in five or six of the redlinks, with a little help from the Japanese articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
                    • Was it only five or six? It seemed like you spent about as much time squishing redlinks as writing the article! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "He worked mostly in the capital of Batavia (now Jakarta), Java, and Padang, Sumatra, with additional work in Bangka, Belitung, Borneo, and Nias.": I changed "lived" to "worked", on the theory that for the lead paragraph, readers will be more interested in where he made photographs than where he lived ... but if he didn't do photography in all these places, then this will be wrong. Also: pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard that Dutch East Indies was meant to include Sumutra ... was it? I'm confused why you say in the lead that all his images came from the Dutch East Indies, and then say later in the paragraph that one of the main places he lived was Sumatra.
    • The Indies included Sumatra, and (after Java) it was their main focus for development ... and Padang was a major culture and trade city. Dutch_East_Indies#Administrative_divisions has some administrative divisions (cited), and this map shows Sumatra as part of the Indies. Our own Milhist articles (I'm citing these as familiar territory) such as Battle of Palembang and Dutch East Indies campaign also show this. I suspect you're thinking of the returning Dutch government between 1945-1949, which was focused on Java and unable to reassert a meaningful presence in Sumatra. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Apologies. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a few edits that are in line with the meme of "classic style" ... there isn't a quick and simple description of that style or why anyone would prefer it, but I'll be happy to discuss if you like.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. FAC is quite fortunate to have your Indonesian articles; I wish we had more articles at FAC relevant to Asia and Africa. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Dank! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Changes look good, as long as we've got a stub. Always a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Well done. Just a few quibbles:
  • "Born to a carpenter in Utrecht, Meessen worked in that profession " Isn't it a trade more than a profession? Picky and classist, probably.
  • I was actually thinking that yesterday. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1858 he first went " Hermanus was the last male mentioned.
  • "the younger Meessen" now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "where he registered himself as a special inspector for water management" registered? Wasn't he employed? This sounds like a government sort of thing.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Battle of San Patricio[edit]

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the smaller battles of the Texas Revolution and a terrific illustration of Texan incompetence. One side literally got caught sleeping. The commander escaped due to a series of crazy coincidences. It's a scene worthy of a novelist's imagination. Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "Goliad Campaign": Readers who don't know what that is won't have a clear idea of what the first sentence is saying. I think of it as Mexico's main or first offensive in the war ... would that be inaccurate?
  • "His campaign was to neutralize the Texian soldiers gathered along the coast.": In the sense of "his campaign would later neutralize ...", or "the goal of his campaign was ..."?
  • Not an issue for me, but there's at least one hidden comment.
  • "While Santa Anna personally led the bulk of his troops inland to San Antonio de Béxar, he ordered General José de Urrea": To resolve the arguably ambiguous "while", I'd either go with "was personally leading" or drop the "while" and change "he" to "and".
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I did some copyediting to address your concerns. [1] I also removed one of the hidden comments. The other is commenting out an image. I am still working on verifying the licensing, so the image is hidden unless that happens. I can remove that completely if it is an issue to have it hidden. Thanks for taking a look at the article! Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks very nice. I think both the title of the article and the way it's presented in the infobox suggest that "Battle of San Patricio" is a proper noun, so I went with "Battle". I don't mind if you revert, but if so, I'd want to resolve the tension with the infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
  • English-speaking settlers in the Mexican border region of [[Mexican Texas|Texas]]: I wonder if there's a better way to link that so readers don't assume it's linking to Texas. Maybe "border region of Mexican Texas"?
  • In the early nineteenth century, captured pirates were executed immediately.: in general, or in Mexico?
  • Why is File:Frank W Johnson.JPG commented out? And are there really no other images you could include besides the map?
  • The fighting ended within fifteen minutes.: short one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon at FAC.
    • Personally, I'd prefer this stays like it is, I think it was a good judgment call. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I fixed this to follow your suggestion
  • Execution of pirates was a general thing, not just in Mexico.
    • It'd be nice to clarify this, but I can't think of a wording that would do it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been having difficulty verifying the PD status of the Frank W. Johnson image, so I commented it out for now. I know it was taken before 1884 and given to an artist before 1908, and that it has resided in the Texas archives since 1927, but I don't know who took the picture and haven't been able to track down if it has been published before. I found one picture purporting to be of General Urrea, but I can't verify it either.
Thanks for your ce help! Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for tolerating my hairsplitting. I'm giving this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Elliott Fitch Shepard[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this article merely to fill a gap in Wikipedia's biography collection. For someone who I couldn't find a single photograph of or really any detailed source about at first, I was surprised that as I researched, I found that Elliott Fitch Shepard was very well documented. I found numerous photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of his life. After reaching Good Article status and going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my fourth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19 TFA Briarcliff Manor, New York, and I nominated this same article a few months ago but had to pick through plenty of problems; all those that were mentioned are now resolved. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

a minor point, which I'm not even sure on: Is there anything in any MOS anywhere about how to use a wife's maiden name over married surname? ie in the lead instead of "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard, granddaughter of..." should it be "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt, granddaughter of..." or even "...married to Margaret Vanderbilt, granddaughter of...". Likewise with the spouse entry in the infobox? cheers, Gecko G (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a good question that I didn't know the answer to at first. The MOS's WP:FULLNAME states "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." In her case, the most commonly used name is "Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard", as can also be indicated by the fact that that's the title of her Wikipedia article.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
ok, good find, it definately fits for the infobox mention then. But for the lead I'm not fully convinced. Based on the very next section in that MOS under "Changed names":
If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention
so I would take that to mean that it should be "he married [insert wife's name using maiden surname]", but I suppose that in this particular case, since it's ...he was married to... (emphasis added) -ie written in the past tense- it's ok, I guess, If I'm understanding that MOS correctly - It just sounds wierd to my ears when I read it. In any event, a very minor concern- ultimately either way ought to work good enough. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand why you'd think that. The term 'was' is only in the past tense because Shepard is dead. If he was alive right now, I'd use the word 'is'. That's because I'm not trying to list his biographical history in saying he became married to someone; I was simply stating the fact that Shepard's wife was M. Shepard. Therefore it should still work with the MOS. That's also why the next reference to the wife is when he's first presented to her, and thus I don't use the name 'Shepard' as part of her name.
Yet I just looked at quite a few of Wikipedia's US President articles (GAs and FAs) and they all seem to omit the married surname, so I guess I should.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 03:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
ok, I see your reasoning for the way it was and I find it sound. But since you changed it I hope you don't mind I went in and changed them all to piped direct links rather than using redirects. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Maurice Ravel[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley talk 16:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

We have FAs on six French composers: Bizet, Fauré, Massenet, Messiaen, Poulenc and Saint-Saëns. I hope Ravel will be admitted to that Panthéon. The article has had the benefit of a peer review from Wikipedia's finest, to whom I am most grateful. I have enjoyed writing about Ravel – an enigmatic figure – and I hope reviewers here, and other visitors to the page, will enjoy reading about him and his music. – Tim riley talk 16:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Found very little fault with it during the PR, certainly meets the criteria!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, M. le docteur! Tim riley talk 18:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support La belle, Monsieur Tim riley. Another happy peer reviewer. Continue your good work. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Your support is much appreciated. Tim riley talk 06:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. Bravo! I also participated in the peer review. I read the article on three occasions then and see little need to do so again before providing my support here. "I do have one comment, about the sentence "Some of his piano music, such as Gaspard de la nuit (1908) is exceptionally difficult to play, and his complex orchestral works such as Daphnis et Chloé (1912) require skilful balance in performance." Unless I am misreading the syntax, it seems to me that there should be a comma after "(1908)" to isolate "such as Gaspard de la nuit (1908)". Syek88 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So there should be (and now is). My teachers were telling me off in the 1960s for persistently forgetting to close subordinate clauses – a habit I have never managed to break during the following fifty years. Thank you very much for your input at PR and support here. Tim riley talk 06:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments I missed out on the peer review (if you expect me at the ball, an invitation is de rigueur) so a few comments here. Part I, I will conclude tomorrow with the music.
  • ". Among his works to enter the repertoire ..." I know what you mean to say here, I'm just not sure you actually do. Is this correct in British English?
    • I'd say it's pretty standard BrEng, but would happily entertain an alternative phrasing. Tim riley talk 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Life and career
  • Is Les Apaches properly italicised? I note, for example, that you do not italicise Les Six.
    • True. The sources, needless to say, are inconsistent. I have gone for non-italics for both groups. Tim riley talk 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The two composers became less friendly " Wasn't much there to begin with, judging by what you've said.
  • " the couple took Ravel on a seven-week cruise on their yacht in June and July 1905, the first time he had travelled abroad." possibly you should mention where they went in general terms to establish that they indeed went abroad.
  • " the one-act comedy L'heure espagnole[n 17] was premiered in 1911" does the "was" add anything?
    • In BrEng "premiere" as a verb is almost invariably transitive; to my eye "it premiered" looks a bit alien. Tim riley talk 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly a footnote should be dropped from Ravel's prediction about the premiere of The Rite of Spring in case the reader does not know what occurred.
  • "He appeared with most of the leading orchestras in Canada and the US from coast to coast and visited twenty-five cities" I might cut "from coast to coast" as it leads to mild ambiguity (did all those orchestras travel with him) and 25 cities are enough that the reader will assume a wide travel.
  • It might be worth mentioning where the premiere of Bolero took place.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Looking forward to your second batch. (Your invitation must have gone astray: it was in an email dated 2 April.) Tim riley talk 10:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Very true. I absorbed the information about Asquith but failed to take in that on Ravel. Very sorry. Your rephrasing and explanations look fine. I should have the remainder tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "he made sketches for it in 1898–89" Ahem.
    • Quite so! Duly amended. – Tim riley talk 08:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "written for his unsuccessful entries for the Prix de Rome" the fors, doubled, are mildly unpleasing.
  • There is one unitalicised use of "Miroirs", in parens for some reason.
  • "technically secure player" This seems to beat around the bush a bit. Perhaps "more skilled" or "more adept"?
  • Cannot more be said about Bolero? That is the one that people have heard of, after all. Possibly in the legacy section? Mentioning its considerable popularity? Satisfying readers expectations and all that.
    • I've added two sentences in the Life section and some more in the Music section.
That's all I have, well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for those points. All attended to – satisfactorily, I hope. – Tim riley talk 08:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Support Indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Wehwalt, for your input here and for your support. Greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk 10:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Suggest including country or state for unfamiliar locations in Sources
  • Should italicize Grove Music Online and The Oxford Companion to Music
    • I don't usually italicise the former, feeling it to be more a publishing department than the title of a work, but have no strong objection, and have done as you suggest. – Tim riley talk 08:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN64 missing comma, same with 193, 195, check for others
    • Done, and checked for others. – Tim riley talk 08:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN73 is using commas where it should use parentheses, also 185
  • Be consistent in whether multi-author works include both authors in short cites
    • I've added Audel to the Poulenc cite, but not the two named translators of the Jankélévitch and Nectoux books.
  • Missing bibliographic details for Schonberg, Henson. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Good grief! Thank you for spotting those omissions. Now speedily repaired. Grateful as always for your keen eye. – Tim riley talk 08:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: Read it at peer review, all my points satisfactorily resolved – tried hard to find a few more to raise here, but couldn't. I'm glad someone is still writing top-quality composer articles, and this is fit to stand with the best of them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, BB, for those kind words, for your input at PR and for your support here. All greatly valued. Tim riley talk 20:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. My few comments were dealt with at PR, and a further read-through from me shows no additional problems: indeed, the article has been strengthened since then. - SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am in your debt for your input at PR and your kind comments and support here. Thank you, SchroCat! Tim riley talk 19:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Maurice_Ravel_1925.jpg: for the given tag, "Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication". Nikkimaria (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Note added to file. It is the practice of the Bibliothèque nationale de France to identify and credit photographers of pictures in its archive when it can do so (see this one – click on "Detailed information", top right) but it has been unable to do so in this case. Tim riley talk 07:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Note -- strong support and checks complete but as it's only been open a week I'd like to give the review another few days to see if anyone else would like to comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Only Girl (In the World)[edit]

Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... Rihanna's highly successful (and one of her most in her entire singles discography) singles, "Only Girl (In the World)", which hit either number-one or number-two is nearly every country that it was released it, and achieved platinum or multi-platinum status. Second nomination. I believe that I have addressed concerns in the previous nomination to the best of my capability.  — ₳aron 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

British contribution to the Manhattan Project[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. It is part of a new series of topic articles, and was only created in December of last year. It has already passed GA and A-Class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: an image review was conducted as part of the A-class review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN36 is displaying wikicode, check formatting
  • FN53 should include publisher
  • FN80: I know this is what NLA produces, but the title should really only be The Canberra Times
  • Use a consistent formatting for USGPO - compare FN36 and 136
  • Books in Notes have no locations while books in References (mostly) include them - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


  • General
    • MOS:SURNAME – Sir John Anderson, Sir John Dill have their full names and titles repeated after first mention. These later mentions should be surname only. Similarly, Klaus Fuchs's full name is repeated.
    • Not clear of your rationale for capitalising: "permanent secretary" and "laboratory director" but "Technical Subcommittee", "head of the British Mission"; we have "Prime Minister" and "prime minister", too.
  • Lead
    • As the article is in BrEng, "program" in the last para of the lead (and the image caption for Oliphant and four later occurrences in the text) should be "programme". In BrEng "program" is for computers; all other uses take the traditional spelling.
  • Origins
  • Early Anglo-American cooperation
    • "He met with the Uranium Committee" – in British usage one meets with inanimate things – disaster, success – but just meets people.
    • "Ironically, it would be revealed" – WP:EDITORIAL.
  • Cooperation resumes
  • "However heavy" – if you must use "however", it needs a comma after it in such a construction.
  • Los Alamos Laboratory
    • "Chadwick arrived 12 January" – missing "on".

I hope these few points are helpful. Tim riley talk 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for that, especially the comments on British English. I was aware that the Americans use "met" to mean "first met", but had not seen a rule about it until now. Also for the note about "program" (which actually is the older form, the French spelling came in later). I was aware of the use of "program" in the computer sense (which comes from Turing & co. in Britain, not from America), but had mistakenly thought that British English had reverted back to the old form. I have corrected this, and all the other points mentioned, except for "ironically", as I meant this literally, and not as WP:EDITORIAL. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Labuan[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Labuan was among the last engagements of the Second World War, and was fought between Australian and Japanese forces during mid-June 1945. The Australians invaded the island in Brunei Bay as part of a campaign whose value remains controversial, and overcame its considerably outnumbered garrison after 11 days of at times fierce fighting. As such, it provides an interesting example of engagements late in the Pacific War, where the suicidally brave Japanese forces were totally outclassed by the firepower available to Allied units.

I've been working on this article since January, and am hoping that it can reach FA status by the 70th anniversary of the start of the battle. The article passed a GA nomination in January, and recently passed a Military history Wikiproject A-class review. I have since expanded and copy-edited the article, and hope that it meets the FA criteria. As I noted in the A-class review, I have a family connection with this battle, as my grandad was a member of one of the Australian infantry battalions involved.

Thanks in advance for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the diff since my last edit during the A-class review, and I supported on prose there. Very happy with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Support My apologies for not reviewing this article at A-class. The article is very good, but I do have some concerns.

  • It seems odd that the Article makes no mention of the codename of the Operation, Oboe 6.
    • Good point: done Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have some problems with the background. The first two paragraphs are great; the last two may strike the reader as contradictory. To avoid this, I would trim the last sentence of the third paragraph so it reads: "Labuan was to be developed as a base for warships and aircraft, and form part of a string of strategic positions which would allow the Allies to control the seas off the Japanese-occupied coast of Asia between Singapore and Shanghai." It was however developed as a PT boat base. (Is that mentioned?)
    • Done. Do you have a source for the PT boat base on Labuan? The DANFS history of the only PT boat tender involved in this Brunei Bay operation says that the base was constructed on Muara Island [2] (though it's implied that she'd anchored off Labuan initially), and Bulkley's history doesn't give a location for the base [3] Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. I think you're right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Now for the more last paragraph of the background. Long is working from Ehrman, Grand Strategy (1954), pp. 224-227. Wilson informed the BCOS of Oboe 6 on 17 March, and the detailed plans reached them on 13 April. The response referred to was sent to Wilson on 27 April. The Americans then replied that a British base in the Philippines would not be available, and suggested that they reconsider. The BCOS then sent the 24 May message quoted by Long on p. 51. This brings us to the last sentence. Now Blamey visited MacArthur in Manila on 4 May and then Morshead on Morotai on 9 May. Morshead issued orders that emphasised that Labuan was not to be developed as a major base. Notwithstanding the weasel word "probably" (Coombes says "presumably", which I take to mean that he has no proof), I suggest that this sentence be deleted.
  • I would appreciate a bit more on the command arrangements. That the landing was carried out by Rear Admiral Forrest Royal's Amphibious Group 6 (And that since Royal died on 18 June, he is the most senior officer casualty in the North Borneo campaign). The air arrangements are worth a mention. Because GHQ cut LHQ out of the command arrangements ostensibly because it could deal with only one headquarters, the table were turned, and the 13th Air Force was placed under Bostock's command so there would be only one air commander.
  • I don't think "However, the 9th Division had been out of action since early 1944, and the prolonged period of training it had undertaken in North Queensland had led to poor morale and an erosion of combat skills among its combat units" is a fair summary of the source (Converse, p. 189) All he says is that the unit had become bored, while noting that its level of training was impressive. Tarakan and Labuan tended to indicate that the division that had cut through Rommel's army at El Alamein and stormed Sattelberg had lost
    • That's a fair point; tweaked. Converse does later say that the 9th Division's performance in Borneo was below its standards earlier in the war (pp. 221-223), but focuses on the 26th Brigade's difficult campaign on Tarakan and, to a lesser extent, the 2/28th Battalion on Labuan (which I think is illustrated in the article). Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would like to expand the last section just a little, if you have no objection. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Please do Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that, as well as your other changes and your review Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz CLR[edit]

Nominator(s): The359 (Talk) 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a series of race cars which suffered unusual accidents in their one and only race and have become part of the history of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and motorsport in general as a famous failure. They are often very well recognized through video and pictures of the accidents, but not well understood. After supposedly being destroyed or abandoned since the accidents, one has reappeared in recent years. The359 (Talk) 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Florence Nagle[edit]

Nominator(s): Sagaciousphil, Eric Corbett, Richerman, Giano, Dr. Blofeld

Florence Nagle was a trainer of race horses at a time when women were not allowed to hold trainers licences, a breeder of champion dogs when women were not allowed to be members of The Kennel Club. and a feminist described by one commentator as "the Mrs Pankhurst of British horse racing". She must have been a formidable woman, as even in her eighties she was actively campaigning for a change to The Kennel Club's constitution to allow women members.

This article is the result of the labours of many editors since Giano created it in October last year, only some of whom are listed above as nominators. Much of the credit must go to Sagaciousphil though, who was too modest to write up this nomination herself. This is our offering to those who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of significant women ought to be improved. I hope you enjoy reading it, and perhaps even find Florence's robust defence of the rights of women to be a little inspiring. Eric Corbett 19:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "Miss Newton Deakin": some copyeditors ask people not to use Miss unless the lack of a husband is part of the storyline. I don't think it's wrong, just a little off. (Looking again ... if you're saying that's the name of the registration, then a small tweak might help make that clearer: change "registered as being owned by her friend Miss Newton Deakin, with whom she jointly owned some of her dogs" to "registered as being owned by Miss Newton Deakin, a friend with whom ...")
  • "kennel girls": I don't know what that means.
  • "£5", "£48", "£750": Not taking a position, just noting that some want to see conversion figures here.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Engaging, lucid, great choice of subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A kennel girl would be a girl who works in dog kennels, although I think kennel maid would be the correct term. Would that make more sense? Richerman (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's your call. My thinking was ... we're being introduced to a dog breeder in the lead, then we see the term "kennel girl" ... my first reaction was, "Wait, was there a kennel mentioned that I missed?" I read it again and saw that there wasn't, so it must have been the estate kennels. I don't know if other readers will do the same double-take. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Miss Newton Deakin: I think bearing in mind the era and rigid class etiquette of the time, Miss Newton Deakin is probably the correct usage and adds to the favour of the subject, which is all a little eccentric. I suspect Miss N-D was very proud of being a "Miss" and like Florence herself a great feminist. We have to be careful of applying modern ideas to older concepts. Just a though of mine. Giano (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Did Stud & Stable Magazine really call her "Racing's Emily Pankhurst"? I assume they meant "Emmeline"; it's not your mistake, but it should be acknowledged by a [sic]. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stud and Stable didn't, but Lambie (2010), p. 480 did. I'm not sure that really needs a "sic", but I'll happily defer to others on that. Eric Corbett 21:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the article, Brianboulton. I did a brief search using "Emily Pankhurst": Google books; jstor; British Newspaper Archive; and, which seems to indicate she was referred to as Emily fairly frequently? I'll just echo Eric's comment and defer to what others feel is best. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact that people have made the same mistake over and over again doesn't exonerate them. Lots of people said/say "Marie Celeste" (for Mary - see excellent WP article). But this is hardly the most important issue here; I thought it worth pointing out, and it's up to you whether you take it up. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It's quite possible that she was called Emily as a shortened form of her name although I've no evidence to back that up. As it's a direct quote, and most people will recognise the name anyway, it's probably best left as it is unless anyone feels strongly that it needs a sic. Richerman (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support by a too-involved editor for a neutral review and not-enough-involved editor to co-nom. I have edited this article early on, and I just wanted to pop by and say that I support the FAC nomination. I can also answer/clarify any horse-related questions if I'm pinged. Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw. Eric Corbett 21:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Support - citation 69, the "online casebook" link gives a 403 error, although the "extract" link works fine. Otherwise, it looks good. GregJackP Boomer! 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope the link I've changed it to is OK? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Cecil_Aldin05.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Sandsprite,_racehorse.jpeg could use {{non-free biog-pic}} instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the correct tags are on both now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I Ching[edit]

Nominator(s): Shii (tock) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Last month I nominated this article for FA and made a number of suggested tweaks. The only remaining issue at the end of that FAC was that one of the sources used, Redmond & Hon 2014 (published by Oxford University Press), had not yet been the subject of any academic reviews. There now is at least one academic review, here. I hope this article is now clear of anything that might stand in the way of FA. Shii (tock) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: This article is looking good, but I can't help feeling that it is a little thin; both the "Divination" and "Influence" sections are for instance each only a paragraph long. I'm really no expert in this subject but on those grounds I fear that it might not be as comprehensive as it could be. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The reason those sections are so short is because they are lead-ins to other articles, I Ching divination and I Ching's influence. Although certainly, if there's more info from those articles that could be included in summary style, I'd be happy to help do that. Shii (tock) 23:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Persuasion (1995 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I present to you the 1995 film Persuasion, an adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. This is easily one of my favorite films, and it consistently scores high on lists of the best Austen adaptations. The article attained GA status in 2011, and since then I've largely rewritten it, modeling its structure after two other FAs I've written (Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice). Unlike those films, sourcing was difficult to find, especially on its production. A recently closed PR review was very helpful, thanks to J Milburn. I hope the article is near the level of FA status, and leave it to you fine reviewers to decide if I am correct. So that said, thank you all in advance for reviewing! I plan to help with reviews on this page as well. Disclosure: this is a Wikicup nomination. Ruby 2010/2013 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Drive by comments As a war nerd, the details on HMS Victory are a bit inaccurate. The ship technically isn't "retired": she's still (incredibly enough) a commissioned Royal Navy warship. Saying that her role is "entertaining tourists" is a bit awkward as she's the centrepiece of a large maritime museum and an important historic artefact - this is a bit like saying that the role of the Elgin Marbles is to entertain tourists. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment and correction, Nick-D. I have now addressed this, by removing "retired" and clarifying that the vessel was just busy entertaining tourists at the time the filmmakers wished to use it. This was definitely an oversight, something I must have introduced when first writing the article in 2011 (the HMS Victory was one of the few pieces of information that I had not rewritten recently). Let me know if you notice anything else, naval or otherwise. Ruby 2010/2013 02:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I still don't think that "then busy entertaining tourists" is accurate: 'then' is wrong as the ship is permanently on display, and 'entertaining' makes it sound like its a fun-ride rather than a museum (I've toured the ship, which I highly recommend, and it wasn't really a lot of laughs). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "It was dry docked as part of a museum in Portsmouth, and filming was only possible during short periods when the vessel was closed to the public" Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have employed your suggested language, Nick-D. Ruby 2010/2013 20:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:NorthangerPersuasionTitlePage.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added the {{PD-US}} tag. Ruby 2010/2013 21:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Only have a couple of minutes, so two initial quick comments- I'll be back for a full review later. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "of other 19th-century depictions" It's not a 19th century depictions. How about something like "most other costume dramas set in the 19th century" or "most other Austen adaptations"?
  • The source says "Most of all, Michell wanted to create a film without the glossy, artificial feel of most portrayals of 19th-century life." Could you clarify why you don't feel the film is a 19th-century depiction? Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This film is a 20th century depiction of the 19th century. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks for clarifying what you meant! I have rewritten this to "...artificial feel of other period dramas set in the 19th-century." Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "debts owed by the" Ambiguous- are the debts owed by, or are they accosted by?
  • I'm not sure I understand your query? The debts are owed by Sir Walter, and his lawyer is accosted by others as he travels to Kellynch Hall. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts owed by the residence's owner" It is unclear from this whether "the residence's owner" is accosting "Shepard and Clay" for "debts owed", or whether "debts owed by the residence's owner" lead to "Shepherd and Clay" being accosted. Is my concern clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks for clarifying (it always helps to have another pair of eyes!). I kept rereading it and couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. I have rephrased this to "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts that are owed by the residence's owner..." Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's still ambiguous! "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts that are owed by the residence's owner"- this could mean 1) that debts are owed by Shepherd and Clay, and are therefore accosted by the residence's owner, or 2) that debts are owed by the residence's owner and thus a nameless someone accosts Shepherd and Clay. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Damn, you're right. Is this clearer? "Shepherd and Clay are accosted by creditors due to the debts owed by the residence's owner..."? Ruby 2010/2013 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dear first suggested they try two of Austen's other works—Sense and Sensibility or Pride and Prejudice—but agreed to adapt Persuasion after reading it." There's some ambiguity here- both, or either but not both?
  • Have added "either" to clarify. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "I just had to keep looking at the book and then somehow radiate the feelings" What book is she talking about, here?
  • I assume she means the novel here. I have added [novel] to help clarify. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "other 19th-century depictions" As above!
  • " Louise Watson, writing for Screenonline," Two things- firstly, why the italics? Second, is Watson a scholar? The previous line implies that she is, but Screenonline isn't a particularly scholarly source. Do you even need the opening line?
  • I thought websites were italicized? Or maybe not? I assumed that Screenonline was reliable because it was established by the British Film Institute, but I had difficulty discovering much on Watson. Surely if she was included on this list (page 2), that must mean she has appropriate credentials, right? She has written many articles on other adaptations as well on the website. I am fine removing the opening line to avoid any implication of her being a scholar, however. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that the source is reliable, I just wonder whether it could be considered "scholarly". (I recall, actually, that I've argued with others about italicising websites. Personally, I really dislike it- we don't italicise "Wikipedia", for example. However, the MOS is ambiguous.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have un-italicized the website and removed the mention of scholarly sources. Let me know if anything else is needed here! Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "naval ship HMS Victory" Given that HMS stands for His/Her Majesty's Ship, you effectively say "naval ship His Majesty's Ship". This may or may not be standard- you'll have to ask a ship person.
    • As a war nerd, I agree: I'd suggest tweaking this to "The film's final scene was shot on HMS Victory". Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed as well, I have removed "naval ship". Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "This decision further increased funding to £1,000,000, and Persuasion was shot on 35 mm film." This is still jarring to me- it's simply not clear what the relationship between these two claims are.
  • I've decided to just removed "35 mm film" from the statement, as the source isn't clear on this either. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mobil Oil Corporation, as a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre, also contributed to the film." As a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre? Do you mean to say that in their capacity as a sponsor to the other work, they contributed to the funding of this project? How does that work?
  • The source notes they are a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre and specifically says they co-produced the film. I've had difficulty finding more details on the company's particular role with Persuasion apart from being a funding source. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's fine that they contributed to the film- this should be included. I'm just not clear on what it means that they contributed "as" a sponsor of MT. Perhaps you could just say something like "Mobil Oil Corporation, who had sponsored [or "who also sponsored"] Masterpiece Theatre, further contributed to the film." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "Lyme" really a common abbreviation for "Lyme Regis"? I've never heard it, but I am from the other end of the country...
  • In the film, they all say they're going to "Lyme". Being an American, I'm not positive on the correct usage (you or another Brit would know better than I!) Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual; she is slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved". Conversely, Dear's screenplay has Wentworth quickly giving up his seat to Anne and then dancing with the Musgrove sisters, furthering the contrast between the two groups.[41]" I struggle to follow this.
  • Yeah, this was a difficult one to write. I've rewritten parts, so let me know if this helps: "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual; while doing so, she is slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved". Conversely, Dear's screenplay has Wentworth quickly giving up his seat to Anne and then immediately dancing with the Musgrove sisters, furthering the contrast between Anne and the others."
  • "to film at many on-site locations" Why not "to frequently film on-location"?
  • "the camera focuses on their faces and expressions, personifying them" It's not clear who the "they" is, here.
  • Changed to "...focuses on the faces and expressions of servants and working people." Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Root described Anne as a "feminist in a prefeminist period" and a "strong, independent character", to whom modern viewers can relate despite the story's period setting.[15]" Could this line perhaps replace "The film's theme of gender has also attracted scholarly attention."?
  • Sure thing, removed that sentence. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a great article, and I'd really like to see it get to FA status, but the writing's still a little short of stellar in a couple of places. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review, Josh! I have addressed or responded to your concerns above. Incidentally, I've been meaning to review your FAC nom of "A Quiet Night In" for a while, and hope to get to it very soon. Kind regards, Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments from Crisco
  • Dear and Root were forced to translate the character's emotions using comparatively little dialogue. - They weren't forced; they could have added other dialogue, for instance. "Felt compelled" or something similar would work better.
  • Originally just a BBC production - Just strikes me as non-formal in this situation. I'd refactor the sentence to use another wording. Also, this sentence feels like it could be trimmed a bit (a BBC production ... British broadcaster is rather redundant)
  • Anne visits her other sister, the hypochondriac Mary (Sophie Thompson), who has married into a local farming family, the Musgroves. - any way to avoid so many commas?
  • Mary later tells Anne that Wentworth thought Anne so altered he "would not have known [her] again". - any way to avoid two "Anne"s? Also, direct quotes need citations.
  • By her own admission, "every actress in England" read for the part. - "Her own admission" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic.
  • WGBH Boston, the American company co-producing the film, had wanted a better known actress for the part but agreed to Root's casting after seeing Root's screen test - wouldn't it be better to mention how they joined on earlier, so that this doesn't come out of nowhere?
  • Ref nytimesbuddha; I believe they reuse information from Allmovie; there's no actual editorial control there.
  • The American ending is reflected on the international poster, which shows the two protagonists embracing. - if we don't actually have the poster for comparison, rather hard to see for ourselves; isn't there a digital version online, instead of the DVD cover? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, thank you so much for reviewing! I believe I have finished addressing your concerns about the article's prose and use of the NYT source (you can view my changes here – let me know if anything still needs work). The only thing I did not implement was the suggestion about the poster – are you suggesting I add both posters and include them in that section, side by side? Ruby 2010/2013 02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be possible, though not side by side. Ultimately it's up to you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I guess I'm just not sure the British poster would be necessary or add much to the article. Plus I'm having trouble finding a decent version of it online, since I do not own a copy. (There's this but it's not great). Let me know if you feel strongly about it. Ruby 2010/2013 02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Why do you state that the air dates were Easter and Christmas, respectively?
  • That is how the source characterizes them. I thought it was relevant to provide context for the reader, but I'm fine removing them if you feel strongly. Ruby 2010/2013 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid repeating "format" when talking about home releases
  • Isn't the British style to use Mr and not Mr. (with a full stop)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed to Mr and Mrs per British style. Ruby 2010/2013 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Really good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The article is very interesting and was a pleasure to read. Good work. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby in advertising[edit]

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Throughout the 1980s in particular, Bill Cosby was one of the most desired advertising pitchmen, representing an intriguing range of products. A few years ago, I noticed this part of his career wasn't mentioned in his main article at all. What I thought would be a large stub turned into a major article.

Article milestones include the promotion to good article status in June 2013, and a substantial cleanup by GOCE Hall of Famer Baffle gab1978. Submissions to peer review have not attracted comment, even before the extensive allegations against Cosby. Given that his career is now pretty much over, it's not a stretch to consider the article complete in coverage.

Thoughts? Where does the article stand? Is it close to featured quality? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry of the Godwins[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the ancestry of Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. He is not known to have had any hereditary claim to the throne, but some genealogists have claimed that he was descended from Alfred the Great's elder brother. The genealogy expert Agricolae (who is sadly no longer editing) contributed, and Ealdgyth and Tim riley made very helpful comments at peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – Very pleased to support. I'm wholly a layman in history of this vintage, but the article seems to me comprehensive, and is widely and thoroughly cited. It is a pleasure to read, guiding the reader smoothly through a maze of Æth***s that in less skilful hands could have been frightfully confusing. The nominator's articles on early English topics have a wonderful way of transporting one back from the clamour of the 21st century to the quite different clamour of a millennium or so ago. This one meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment, and I much enjoyed rereading it for present purposes. – Tim riley talk 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments form Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I know almost nothing about this sort of subject. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments.
  • Thanks for your edits Curly. The only one I have reverted is "he descended from". The Cambridge online dictionary says "he was descended from" is correct.
  • When King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 the legitimate heir was his great-nephew, Edgar Ætheling, but he was passed over, and Harold, the head of the most powerful family in England and Edward's brother-in-law, became king.: which so many commas, this is a bit of a bumpy ride, especially at the beginning of the article. Maybe something like: "When King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 the crown passed over his legitimate heir and great-nephew Edgar Ætheling and instead went to Harold, the head of the most powerful family in England and Edward's brother-in-law."?
  • "the crown passed over" does not sound quite right to me. Are you happy with my alternative?
  • sometimes you set of names with commas ("his great-nephew, Edgar Ætheling") and sometimes not ("their father Godwin"). Best to settle on one style.
  • Done.
  • was left land at Compton: I can see from later in the article that it's not clear if these are the same Comptons, but at this point the reader would assume it is.
  • Clarified.
  • Williams in her ODNB article on Godwin, and Robin Fleming in her ODNB article on Harold, do not mention the theory when discussing Godwin's ancestry.: this could be Original Research if the lack of mentioning the theory is not mentioned in a RS.
  • I do not see this. Saying a theory is mentioned would not be OR, so saying it is not mentioned should not be either.
  • Thanks for much for your helpful comments Curly. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I imagine whatever comes of the last point will conform to whatever the consensus is, and as it's the only outstanding point I see no reason not to give this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Harold2.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Songs from the Black Hole[edit]

Nominator(s): Popcornduff (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the unreleased album by the American alternative rock band Weezer. It was to be a science fiction rock opera that expressed songwriter Rivers Cuomo's mixed feelings about rock and roll success. The article achieved Good Article status last year and I've made improvements since then; I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Popcornduff (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tales of Wonder (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tales of Wonder was the first British science fiction magazine aimed at the adult market. It was successful and encouraged at least one other publisher to launch a science fiction magazine in the UK, but World War II brought paper shortages and mobilization for the editor, Walter Gillings, and the magazine was forced to close. The magazine is now a collector's item; it includes early work by John Wyndham, and the first professional sales by Arthur C. Clarke. The article is short, but I believe I've exhausted the available sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, I would agree that you've exhausted sources, and that the article is as long as it needs to be to sufficiently inform readers. As with all your articles, the prose itself is very readable. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks! And thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, the article meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: Overall it looks good. I have just a couple of concerns:
    • two of the paragraphs are overly long; one in each of the primary sections. Please consider splitting them appropriately for less tedious reading.
      Done; I had a bit of trouble deciding where to split the first one, but I think the result is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The first footnote (Ashley, Time Machines) is missing a year. Two of the subsequent entries are missing 'pp.' for the page range. Please make them consistent.
      Oops; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Talesofwonder.jpg: FUR is very minimal - should do a better job of explaining the rationale for inclusion and how it meets NFCC. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Interesting, I just assumed it was public domain. The UK rule is 70 years from the artist's death, but is it actually the corporation that would own the rights to this image, in which case, does the 70 years start immediately, as is practice in some countries? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
      @Nikkimaria: I've expanded the FUR as much as I think I can; it's my understanding that a low-resolution image of a magazine is accepted as a fair use image if all magazine covers are copyrighted, so that the reader can see what the magazine looked like. @Zanimum: that would be great, but I'm not sufficiently expert on copyright to know. If it turns out to be true, please let me know -- in that case I could add a couple more magazine covers to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Either way, the image would still have been copyrighted in the UK on 1 Jan 1996 and so is still copyrighted in the US - see WP:NUSC. Mike, can you please include on the image description page the date of the cover, copyright holder if known, and something other than "no" for "portion used"? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a commemorative coin that didn't commemorate anything, and was conceived, by all accounts, as a way of extracting money from collector's pockets. Which it quite successfully did. These things happened in other issues, but this may be the extreme example.Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I would like to support this based on a overall prose quality, but I am wondering about the citation to a letter which can be found in a box at a certain library. This is harmless original research, but it still is literally original research. Is a copy of this letter available? Shii (tock) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It is illustrated in the article. It was part of the research for my journal article, "The Birth of the Oregon Trail Half Dollar" (The Numismatist, October 2013, pp. 42–49) but I did not wind up using it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Theodore_thomas.jpg needs US PD tag and author's date of death
Switched tag to PD-US. The book it's taken from was published in Camden, NJ in 1919.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Melish_OTMA_letter.jpg: when/where was this first published?
I doubt it's been, so I've switched to PD-ineligible. A simple rejection letter surely doesn't have copyright protection.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • File:1936_Cincinnati_PDS_(SET).jpg: USGov tag should be removed - covered more specifically by currency tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It has a currency tag already.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Southern Cross (wordless novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The sole wordless novel by Canadian artist Laurence Hyde, who was late to the party—the major practitioners of the form had already moved on to other things, and there have been few such works since (a surprising number of which have been Canadian). This is a work of indignation against the nuclear tests in the Bikini Atoll, though you'll likely read it for the artwork rather than the story. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I don't have a position on whether it's better to give dates or just years for birth and death.
  • "Hyde was familiar with some of the American Lynd Ward's books and German Otto Nückel's Destiny (1926). The only work he knew of Flemish artist Frans Masereel ...": I guess all I can say right now is that I have no confidence that FAC reviewers and writers are on the right track on "false title" issues. There are a variety of opinions among professional writers and copyeditors, and there's no easy fix that I know of ... but, in general terms, what we're doing isn't working.
  • "In talk with the CBC": Not sure what that means.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

2006 UAW-Ford 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, a NASCAR race held at Talladega Superspeedway. I have tried to bring this article to standards similar to those seen in WikiProject NASCAR's only other FA, 2010 Sylvania 300. I went back and fixed some minor issues; the first nomination failed to receive a thorough review, so I'm hopeful I can receive some positive feedback this time. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I've once again read the article and I still believe that the article deserves promotion to FA status. Z105space (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Bach's cantata O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165, written for Trinity Sunday of 1715, 300 years ago which attracted me. I thank RHM22 for an inspiring GA review. I recently added a table of the cantatas written that year, details about the situation in Weimar which is not covered in Bach nor the other Weimar cantata, BWV 172, and more about the music. I confess that I don't feel that the article is "ready", - I spent more time on women's history month and articles for the Holy Week than I had anticipated. Looking at a possible TFA day on Trinity Sunday this year, 31 May, I hope that we can manage the needed polishing together. "Hope" begins the first header on my talk ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with an of my comments:
Thank you for ce, much appreciated! --GA
  • The text sometimes uses the serial comma ("two violins, viola, and continuo") and sometimes not ("a summary scripture, baptism and the Eucharist")
It's a feature I am regularly not sure about, but also not passionate. Feel free to change. --GA
Having looked: I used before continuo, because that comes with a clause only for continuo, not the rest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • He composed it ... and first performed it on 16 June 1715: in the body it says he "led the first performance" on that date.
"first performed" is short for the later "led the performance from the concert master position, playing the first violin". --GA
changed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • the first half of the [[Church cantata (Bach)|liturgical year]]: why does "liturgical year" link to Church cantata (Bach)?
Because that article was originally named "List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function", Will be more specific, good point." --GA
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • which mentions as a summary scripture, baptism and the Eucharist.: does this mean scripture, baptism and the Eucharist are mentioned as a summary? Or does "summary scripture" have some special meaning?
It mentions the three in the first line, and is thus a summary of the topic of the cantata. How would you word that? --GA
I tried now, changing word order. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on the text full of images: literal images?
No, the images baroque lyric uses, such as the serpent. --GA
Will expand on the poets language and then probably say "Baroque imagery" in the lead, unless you have a better idea
  • the Weimar court capelle: is there a good link for "capelle"?
Our article is court chapel, this I think is in quote, will check. --GA
  • "a newly defined rank order": quotes require attribution—but is there some reason this should be quoted?
Yes, to not paraphrase the source too closely --GA
Sorry, by attribution I mean the text has to say who said it—a citation doesn't tell you whose quote it was, because the source may be quoting someone else. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I copied the ref from the end of the sentence to the phrase, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that, when you have a quote, you have to say in the text who said it ("So-and-so said xxx" or "According to So-and-so, xxx"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • sometimes you provide the English term with a German gloss in parentheses, and sometimes the other way around. Any reason?
Yes, when the German is understandable in the prose but some people may need a translation I use it first, when it is only a help to be recognizable as the same thing, I like it second, + I am not the most consistent of people. --GA
  • has been described as "congenial and intimate": needs attribution
Done. --GA
  • led the performances as the first violinists: should "violinists" not be singular?
Yes, typo, done --GA
  • Sein Wort, sein Tauf, sein Nachtmahl dient wider allem Unfall, der Heilge Geist im Glauben lehr uns darauf vertrauen.: a translation would be nice
It is in the source, and how about copyright? --GA
I added a translation. However, I think mine is closer to the German. It's just above the poem ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks good to me! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean having the translation looks good, or the translation looks good? German is free in word order, "der Heilge Geist im Glauben lehr uns darauf vertrauen" means "der Heilge Geist lehre uns im Glauben darauf [zu] vertrauen." which translates to "the Holy Spirit may teach us to trust in this in faith", which is not exactly "the Holy Spirit in faith teaches us to rely upon them" ("may teach", not "teaches" - "in faith" belongs to the speaker, not to the Holy Spirit - "darauf" means "in this" = the whole statement = trust that the three elements mentioned will help in all need", not "rely upon" the three elements. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
My German is too basic to know if it's an accurate translation, but the English version reads well. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It may read well, but I tried to explain the three things where it isn't what the German says, - and can't be if meter and word order are to be kept. It's one of the reasons cantata articles normally don't show any text and translation. There are several on the Bach-cantatas site, to different languages. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was just hoping for something that could give the reader a general understanding of the text, which otherwise will be gibberish to most readers. I don't think it's that important. If you're worried, maybe you could put it into an endnote? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The general understanding is/was above the poem, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There was some misunderstanding here that Gerda and I worked out on my talk page. The translation above has been replaced with another. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, very helpful! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I made some changes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, I'm ready to support on prose. I don't have the kind of knowledge to tell if the article is truly comprehensive, etc., so I'll leave that to editors knowledgeable in the subject to decide. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Syek88[edit]

Comment. I had quite an enjoyable time reading this article while following the score and a recording (I chose Rilling). I have decided to "comment" rather than "support" or "oppose" because I do not have prior experience assessing articles against the Featured Article Criteria, but I hopefully have some useful things to say:

Lovely feeling to have induced some enjoyable time! --GA
General response: the lead is probably the last section to be finalized. In about 200 cantata articles including two featured articles and several good articles, "2 violins" means 2 parts, not 2 players - there can be more. Vocal parts the same, soprano can be more than one singer. If you look at the performance venue and see the list of seven singers, you may agree that for just one chorale Bach likely didn't get more voices than the four present anyway. This is NOT voting for one voice on a part for all works in all venues, I think. Leipzig is not Weimar, other places around the world are not the Himmelsburg.
Feel free to make changes yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead states “The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for a small ensemble of four vocal soloists, two violins, viola, and continuo including cello and bassoon.” The bassoon part is written to double the continuo part: as you later say, it never has an independent role. However, the doubling is only in particular sections and there are minor ornamental differences, so I don’t think it is correct to say that it is ‘’included’’ in the continuo part. It is probably acceptable for the cello which seems to be in concordat with the continuo at all times. I would suggest, subject to my second and third bullet points below, “The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for a small ensemble of four vocal soloists, two violins, viola, cello, bassoon and continuo.” That would be more consistent with the later sentence in the article: “The cantata in six movements is scored like chamber music for … bassoon (Fg), cello (Vc) and basso continuo (Bc).” Here, in this later sentence, the continuo, bassoon and cello parts are considered separate, which I think is more correct.
  • The second quibble that I have with that sentence in the lead is that it takes the side of the one-voice-per-part movement with the suggestion that the four vocal soloists are the only vocalists within the “small ensemble”. OVPP is highly debatable. A later sentence in the article – “The cantata in six movements is scored like chamber music for four vocal soloists (soprano, alto, tenor and bass), a four-part choir (SATB)” – is better because it is agnostic as to how many voices there would be to each part in the concluding chorale.
done in the lead, feel free to add precision to the scoring --GA
  • The third quibble with that sentence, and also with the later sentence, is whether the work scored for "two violins" and "viola", as the article says, or "two violin parts and violas" (and "cellos"). Even Jeggy adopts a large string section at times: see It might be better to name the parts for which the work is scored and say nothing about how many instruments there are to each part. (Now you see why I sided with Rilling, who I suspect is armed with string forces around the 6-6-4-3 mark.)
called "vocal parts" now in the lead --GA
  • Movement 1: The article says that the B theme is the reverse of the A theme. Inverse is the accurate term here, as reflected in the quoted passage from Alfred Dürr. I don’t know how one “reverses” music: by playing it backwards? What Bach is doing in the B theme is inverting the A theme such that ascents become descents and vice versa. I would also mention that the inversion is not complete: as I read the score, only the first two measures of the A theme are inverted before the B theme takes a rather different course.
go ahead, add this and the following, or I will later --GA
  • Movement 1: There seems to be to be another symmetrical aspect to the movement: both the opening and closing ritornelli are fugues.
  • Movement 3: might “four phrases” be better than “four sections”?
not sure, because "phrasing" has also a different meaning, but open --GA
  • My apologies if there is a clear and obvious answer to this question - What are the criteria upon which the “Selected recordings” are identified?
The recordings were given as simple lists before I even started to look at Bach's cantatas in 2010. They are based on the listing on bach-cantatas. BWV 22 has a table instead.
Thank you for listening and good comments, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Now that I see that other more experienced contributors have supported this article, I am confident enough to support despite my earlier hesitant comment. I would, however, condition that support on making the instrumentation and reverse-inverse changes that I mention above. As for the instrumentation, as I interpret it, the term "two violins" can only mean one thing: two people, each playing a violin. Even if that interpretation were open to dispute, ambiguity could be eliminated with the following changes:
(Please discuss the "two violins" question with project classical music, - it would change many articles where scoring is given if we had to add "parts" every time.) ---GA
  • Change the first sentence of the third paragraph to "The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for four vocal parts, strings, bassoon and continuo." The term "strings" is both accurate and simple. Alternatively, if that were deemed too simple, it could say "The music is structured in six movements, alternating arias and recitatives, and scored for four vocal parts, two violin parts, cello, bassoon and continuo."
"strings" taken ---GA
  • Change the second sentence of "Scoring and structure" in the same or a similar way.
hesitating, see also BWV 172 and BWV 22, on top of around 200 other articles for Bach alone ---GA
  • Change the third sentence of the first movement's section to "The theme of B involves an inversion of material from A, that of C is derived from measure 2 of the ritornello."
good, taken ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Two out of three is good enough for me, thank you, so I too am happy to support. Thank you for your suggestion about pursuing the "two violins" question with project classical music, but I think I will have to decline. I'm involved in one near-violent Wikipedia argument at the moment. Opening an argument about the appropriate size of an ensemble for Bach's music would be too much! Joshua Rifkin probably needs bodyguards. Syek88 (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • The supposed English term "capellmaster" is unknown to me, and more to the point unknown to Grove and the Oxford English Dictionary. It is true that "Kapellmeister" is not in the OED either (though it is in Chambers's), but it is in Grove, and I reckon you'd be much better off sticking with that rather than trying to translate it.
It is used by Christoph Wolff who is quite an authority, and readers will find it there. I am willing to change, though, if more voices prefer that. --GA
Have you used "capellmaster" in earlier articles? Best let sleeping dogs lie, if so. Otherwise my own strong inclination would be to keep the original. But as you say, let's see if any other editors have an opinion. Whom could we ping for an informed view? Perhaps our Messiah colleague. (Parenthetically, did you know that Karajan habitually put his occupation as "Kapellmeister" in official documents?) Tim riley talk 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't but like to use what the sources say ;) - Will think about it but not today (unless much later), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Wolff is undoubtedly an authority on Bach and all things related thereto, but not perhaps of English which isn't his native tongue. I've never seen the word "capellmaster" anywhere; it's a made-up hybrid of Italian and English, and I would prefer to see the more widely known form in its place. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thinking: if we use Kapellmeister, we should also say Hofkapelle, Vize-Kapellmeister, Konzertmeister, right? - All good terms, related to chapel, the original sacred place, and fine with me, but if people confuse them with what they normally think - Karajan and the first violinist of the Berlin Philharmonic - it might be misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
No, because "Kapellmeister" is an adopted word in English (or at least has a toehold in our dictionaries) whereas the other terms are clearly completely German. Tim riley talk 18:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gymnasium", on the other hand, will confuse many English readers, who will think of physical jerks rather than the educational establishment that the German term represents. If a suitable English term can be found, I'd be inclined to use it.
there is a link, and no English term quite matches that type of school. --GA
I had a vague idea that would be the case. Oh, well! Let's leave it. Tim riley talk 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "resulted in a program" – is the article in AmEng? Fine if so. If in BrEng, you want "programme"
I am not consistent - see above - having lived in the US but not the UK. More readers may read on a US background, no? --GA
Undeniably, but you will understand that an Englishman is likely to think his English is the real thing, and foreign varieties not quite echt. Still, the arithmetic is clear enough. Tim riley talk 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "melismas" – I see from the OED that this form of plural is all right, but I think "melismata" is usual. It would be useful to have other editors' views on this point.
For some reason, "melismas" and "commas" don't hurt me, while "requiems" do. --GA
  • WP:OVERLINK: I'd say hymn doesn't want a blue link. There are duplicate links to the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, serpent and Moses.
Hymn and violin are linked in all cantata articles, sorry. The other three are intentional, because not all readers will read sequentially. --GA
Hmmm. Not wholly persuaded, but will not press the point.

I hope these few points are helpful. Tim riley talk 12:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

They are, thank you for looking closely! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Happy to add my support now. Tim riley talk 18:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

spotchecks not done

Thank you for pointing out some aspects of a work in progress! --GA
  • Why so many sources for "The cantata in six movements..."?
fixed --GA
  • On what basis have you selected your recordings?
They are the ones bach-cantatas lists. --GA
  • What are the original publication details for Zedler?
[4] His insight is used for the other cantata FAs. I would not use it for disputed facts. --GA
  • Don't mix cited and uncited sources in Bibliography
Please tell me what you find uncited, - it is not intentional. --GA
No citations to Dürr 1971, IMSLP, Leonard 2015, Oron 2012. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
In the beginning all Dürr citations were to 1971 (in German), now one is left because I can't see those pages in English and would not know the page number of the translation. I deleted Leonard and Oron when I fixed the above, but use Oron now for the recordings, placing Leonard as external link. The score should be available for everyone to check, - do you think it would be a good idea to provide the page number for the movements? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest providing ISBN-13 where available
done --GA
  • What makes Browne a high-quality reliable source? Grob?
see Zedler, Grob has details which can be seen in facsimiles also but not as easily --GA
  • Koster is a linguist - what makes him a high-quality reliable source in this context?
similar, the site offers contemporary images that help me, so perhaps others also, - and it's in English --GA
For all four: accessibility could be a rationale for inclusion in External links but does not in itself support a judgment of reliability for sourcing purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest to have a second reference for those then. Placing them in External links would break the connection of where reading them would be useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you use bach-cantatas or
done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Not done, see also FN1. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
done now - sorry, I keep forgetting that I am not the only editor, - I knew where "my" references are, and after some thinking, it dawned to me what FN may mean, thank you for noticing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, please let us know if the adjustments satisfy your concerns, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not satisfied as to the reliability of several of the sources being used - having a second reference helps, but you could maintain the "connection of where reading them would be useful" instead by annotating the EL section, if wanted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I try to please you by moving three of them (Arnold, Koster and Zedler) to external links, although I fail to see why you think that they are less trustworthy than Mincham, for example. I see Grob as a database without POV which I would like to keep for a few quotations taken from the manuscript which can be verified there but less easily so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I know, having previously looked at Mincham as a source, that I believe he meets WP:SPS (see for example [5]); I don't know that of the others, which is why I asked for justification. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Instead I moved three to external. I will perhaps think about justification for the next round, concentrating now on expanding and improving linked articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

I think the prose is a bit shaky. My view—which I would express to any FAC nominator—would be that this is not a place for "polishing" an article. Having said that, we are here now, and I think the requisite polishing is achievable. Generally, most of my prose concerns arise from syntax – sentences that are hard to read, or even misleading, because they are arranged in a peculiar internal order:

  • "and probably another on the Trinity Sunday concluding his first year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig on 4 June 1724." – this would be clearer if the date were moved closer to "Trinity Sunday" (eg "the Trinity Sunday of 4 June 1724, which concluded his first...").
Thank you for your patience. This topic will be expanded. --GA
I sorted the paragraph but will look for more sources for the likelihood of a performance on 4 June 1724. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Capellmaster Samuel Drese was still in office at Bach's time, and shared it" – By this point I had forgotten what "it" (responsibility for church music) was. I'd suggest replacing the pronoun.
reworded --GA
  • "Performers of the cantatas were mainly the core group of the Hofkapelle, seven singers, three leaders and five other instrumentalists" – are the singers, leaders and instrumentalists part of the "core group of the Hofkapelle"? If so, a comma after "Hofkapelle" is likely to mislead as it suggests it is part of a cumulative list. A colon might be better. If the list is cumulative, I'd suggest an "as well as" (or similar) before "seven" to clarify.
tried "formed by", - it's not cumulative --GA
  • "while the organ part was played by Bach's students" – "organ parts", because we are talking about multiple works?
only one work played at a time, though, - if I read organ parts, I would think of one work using more than one organ, no? --GA
  • "Even in settings like chamber music, a strong continuo section with cello, bassoon and violone in addition to the keyboard instrument was requested" – requested by whom?
by the composer, - active voice tried --GA
  • "and related to the gospel's verse 14 which compares to the symbol" – I don't understand this. Perhaps just let the quote speak for itself a bit more, without so many introductory words.
shortened --GA
  • What does "Rec: con Stroment." mean?
I added the translation "(Recitative: with instruments)", but it doubles what is said before, "accompanied by the strings (accompagnato)" --GA
  • "adagio" marking on the words "hochheiliges Gotteslamm" – an "adagio" marking (or similar)?
done --GA
  • "and by melodic parts of the instruments" – surely "of" should be "for", otherwise it suggests that two strings of a violin are melodic but the other two aren't.
taken --GA
  • "reviving it probably there on Trinity Sunday of his first year in office" – the placement of the "probably" is problematic. Is it the location or the date to which the "probably" qualifier applies?
will be reworded, probably tomorrow --GA
done but may still change --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Otherwise, the article is certainly informative, and while I am no Bach expert it appears comprehensive in the sense that it covers everything I would expect it to. Subject to the resolution of Nikkimaria's points, the sourcing also appears to be appropriate. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for careful reading and helpful comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda. Support. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from the Doctor[edit]

Just noticed that Gotthold Schwarz is linked twice in the last recording section. Is that intentional?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Unusual case, as he is both conductor and soloist. Normally we link them all in a list not expecting readers to read sequentially, but as it is in the same line I removed the link. Very observant, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Does seem unusual than one can concentrate on both at once!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
You know that the bass has (only) two recitatives, and in recitatives the instruments often go with the singer without a conductor (who might be disturbing even) anyway. --GA
Is there a link for Konzertmeister? As it's not an English term it might benefit from a footnote or the name in brackets even if fairly obvious. Does it mean head of the concert or conductor? Kappellmeister too. In brackets like Schlosskirche (court church) might work best for English readers.
There is a link but it describes what a modern Konzertmeister does in a symphony orchestra which has nothing to do with composing, - misleading and therefore not linked in BWV 172. It was "concert master", with German in brackets, before some comments above. Will restore it, now in brackets. --GA
  • "The position, which gave him "a newly defined rank order", as Christoph Wolff phrased it,[3] was created for him, possibly on his demand.[3]" -a lot of commas here, perhaps reword to "The position was created for him, possibly on his demand, giving him "a newly defined rank order" according to Christoph Wolff.
taken --GA
  • "In his first cantata of the series, Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182, for the double feast of Palm Sunday and Annunciation, he showed his skill in an elaborate work in eight movements, for four vocal parts and at times ten-part instrumental writing.[8] He also presented himself as a violin soloist." -rep of he/his -perhaps change one to Bach.
one dropped --GA
  • In the table perhaps an asterisk/footnote would work better and look more formal explaining that it is possible but unverified/unknown rather than using question marks?
will think about that, will possible word something on the poets, --GA
  • "Bach led the first performance of the cantata on 16 June 1715. The performance material for Weimar is lost.[25] Bach performed the work again as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. Extant performance material was prepared by Bach's assistant Johann Christian Köpping.[26] The first possible revival is the Trinity Sunday of Bach's first year in office, 4 June 1724,[27] also the conclusion of Bach's first year and first Leipzig cantata cycle, because he had assumed his office on the first Sunday after Trinity the year before. Bach made presumably minor changes." -the opposite from earlier here, Bach is mentioned six times in one paragraph! Perhaps change a few to "he".
taken, 2 changed --GA
  • "The cantata was published in the first edition of Bach's complete works by the Bach-Gesellschaft in 1887 in volume 33, edited by Franz Wüllner." -do we have the formal name for this publication?
It's called Bach-Ausgabe, but has no link other than Bach-Gesellschaft. --GA
  • Delink Neue Bach-Ausgabe in next section per overlink.
it's there for people reading only that para --GA
  • "John Eliot Gardiner" -I'm sure some of us who don't know much about classical music are ignorant of his identity (even if we shouldn't be), perhaps add "The English composer" before his name like you do with the musicologist further down?
In other articles, we (only) say "the musicologist" if there is no link. I will think about saying something about the Bach Cantata Pilgrimage. --GA
  • Ditto with Klaus Hofmann and William G. Whittaker.
ditto, - I did it for Whittaker --GA
  • In movement 4, haven't you already linked Moses and serpent or is this piped to a different article now?
yes, linked before, but again: some readers will not read sequentially, and it is especially here where the image and its relation to the music is discussed --GA
  • Who is Aryeh Oron?
Sorry, I don't know. The spirit behind the Bach-Cantatas website. Perhaps we should have an article on the Bach-Cantatas website ;) --GA
I was thinking that it is the primary source on so many Bach related articles we ought to have an article on it, or at least a list in the workspace of all of the missing articles on the site. There's so much missing!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've started this. I reckon it would be very productive to have every missing article on it red linked on here! At future FACs then there shouldn't be many bio red links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All good, really feels like an authoritative article on it, look forward to supporting once addressed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC) ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Praise to you for looking into this and also for filling the red links left! (Five, I believe?) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Well done! Happy to do so, I'm feeling productive at the moment! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Support from RexxS[edit]


I am usually more interested in the background to a piece of music than the intricacies of its scoring, but this article managed to pique my interest in the latter as well. The writers have covered all the topics that I would look for and written it in a manner that keeps my attention. There are not as many references as I might have expected, but I think there are sufficient to verify any text that might be challenged. I dislike having my reading interrupted by having to follow links too often just to understand, but this article manages to explain itself without much need to look at other pages. Well done!


Although we don't insist on meeting all of WP:ACCESS, I believe that our best work should be as accessible as possible, not only to cater for the visually impaired, but because it serves as a model for other editors to copy. In this respect, the article meets all of my criteria:

  • Images have good alt text that is not too involved, but makes sense when read by screen reader in conjunction with the caption;
  • Tables have captions and properly marked up row and column headers;
  • There is no text too small to read;
  • Colours - where used - have sufficient contrast with their background to make the text readable, and are judiciously chosen so as not to be a distraction.

I'd actually prefer a slightly less saturated colour for the header background in the bottom navbar, but I accept that others prefer it as it is. Overall, I would recommend this article as one of Wikipedia's best works. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Nikolaus-Selnecker.jpg - Source of this digitization? Having English (or at the very least autotranslated) fields would help immensely.
  • File:Crijn Hendricksz.jpeg - Need a version that isn't watermarked.
  • File:1662 Wilhelm Ernst.jpg - Fine
  • File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg - Source of this digitization? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • File:Nikolaus-Selnecker.jpg is an photograph or scan of a 16th century print (made from a copperplate engraving) that belongs to the Theological Seminary in Wittenberg . I've added English translations to the File on Commons. The uploader is commons:User:Torsten Schleese, who identifies as a local history researcher from Wittenberg, so we would have little reason to question his bona fides. As it is a faithful reproduction of a 2-D work of art, the photographer or scanner is unable to generate fresh copyright, as far as WMF is concerned, and that leaves the file as PD-old-100. However I do see that commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs suggests that the image may not be re-usable in some jurisdictions.
    • Much the same applies to File:Schlosskirche Weimar 1660.jpg which is a reproduction of 17th century oil painting, uploaded by commons:User:Wetwassermann~commonswiki. In general, knowing who made the digitisation doesn't help much other than to help differentiate between a photo and a scan. If the creator is also the uploader, then they have released the images as PD-old-100, so the only question is whether we believe that the uploader had the right to release file under that licence. That concern, of course, is a consideration for every file that finds its way onto Commons. Unfortunately Wetwassermann hasn't been around since 2010, so I don't suppose we can ask him. Does that address your concerns or do you think we ought not to use images that may not necessarily be reusable everywhere? --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, RexxS, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Would this image of the conversation be better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Rex, I am well aware of the copyright status of the images. That doesn't change the fact that we need sources for the digitizations; we need to say where we got them, and where we got the information about them. Otherwise, these are not examples of Wikipedia's "best" work, as they have unclear sourcing, and uncited information regarding the image itself. Without a source, we can't say for sure that this is a work by X, Y, or Z; what we have is a claim, which may or may not be true. Furthermore, on Commons, lacking a source is grounds for speedy deletion (F5). I doubt we want that to happen here. I've fixed the Selnecker image myself (added "scanned by self" (i.e. the uploader), though to be honest the original source scanned would be best), but the Schlosskirche image still needs a source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Gerda, the Luyken etching would be fine, but again it needs a source. Furthermore, it should be JPG and cropped to remove the text information (the last two are easy to do; I'll do it when I get home from work). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I expected you to know, Crisco, but my commentary will also be read by other editors who may wish to form a view on the issue. Featured Articles are by no means perfect - many don't even meet our basic standards for accessibility, but that's another story - and sometimes we have to accept compromises between having images that meet particular standards and degrading the quality of the article by losing useful images. The standards for images on Commons are an issue for Commons, not this Wikipedia, and most of the time it boils down to whether or not we accept that the uploader has the right to release image under the licence used. My position is that unless we have a genuine reason to suspect that the uploader did not have that right, then we have to respect the given licence as governing re-use. It is not a prerequisite to have details of who scanned PD art, because they cannot affect the right of use under a PD-licence. I accept that photographs carry more copyright issues in some jurisdictions, but that should not be a disqualification for a Featured Article candidate, as WP:FACR.3 only requires "acceptable copyright status" - indeed, even the use of non-free images is allowed subject to meeting the image use policy, none of which requires the source to be named.
Additional: Please don't allow the impression that images should be converted from grey-scale gif to jpg format. A gif or 256-colour png can hold just as many shades of grey as can a jpg, but a jpg is a lossy format, while the compression used in gif or png loses no picture information. If there is concern that file size is too great, then by all means create a derivative jpg image, but at thumbnail size File:Bowyer Bible etching by Jan Luyken 8 of 12 Jesus converses with Nicodemus.gif is only 25kB and any reader who has difficulty with that will inevitably have images switched off anyway. --RexxS (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Archived versions of an image should be PNG, yes (GIF is much less common, larger, and less capable, and for new uploads Commons prefers PNG, as per commons:Commons:File types), but until the WMF cleans up their act and enables proper downsampling for PNGs, JPGs should be used in the articles for images with a lot of fine detail such as this. Compare the images in Brian Britten: PNG, JPG. One is blurry and seems to have been shot through a window, while the other is perfectly clear. This keeps the images clearer in the article, and reduces download size.
I firmly disagree with your position on images, as we cannot guarantee that the copyright information is correct without a source. Furthermore, and much more simply, WP:FA? #3 includes a sentence you didn't quote: "Images included follow the image use policy," which requires a source for files; by not including sources, the images are not meeting the image use policy, and thus not in line with the FA criteria. As such, until the images are cleaned up, I must sadly oppose this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Gerda, I've uploaded a new, non-watermarked version of File:Crijn Hendricksz.jpeg. That means you only need to clean up the sourcing information for the Schlosskirche Weimar image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Steve Zakuani[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is being nominated a second time after taking some much needed advice and assistance. Substantial expansion (while eliminating potential bias) was done,[6] and an editor from The Guild of Copy Editors did some fantastic work.[7] The first FAC asked for some good sourcing and I can now say that even a published paper was used for the relatively young subject. I don't think there are any issues remaining but am stoked to take care of any issues.

Disclaimer: I'm participating in the Wiki Cup.Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it looks good overall. My one complaint would be the intro is a little long. Stevetauber (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I feared the opposite since the lead is a relatively short summary. I would be happy to take action if you see anything in particular that seems like too much.Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at WP:LEADLENGTH. The article is 13kb of prose, which normally would warrant one to two paragraphs. Four paragraphs for an article of this length would require remarkable justification. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Fixed?Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

1880 Greenback National Convention[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the political convention of a minor political party in 1880. The eventual nominee, James B. Weaver, collected only three percent of the presidential vote that year, but the issues debated in the convention's platform fights—women's suffrage, child labor, immigration, and the eight-hour-day—would become nationwide discussions for later generations. Enjoy! Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Nineteenth-century monetary politics is a subject that I always enjoy reading and learning about. You've done a great job with this article, and I can safely support. That said, I have a couple of minor comments about things that caught my attention.

  • Origins: "...had reason to hope to improve on the results of 1876." Does this mean that some promising results meant that the Greenbackers believed they could do better in 1880? If so, I'd suggest rewording to "...had reason to believe that they could improve on the results of 1876."
  • Preliminaries: "After the Exposition, it hosted festivals and concerts for several years until it was demolished in 1892." I would probably relegate all of this to a footnote.

Other than that, everything looks good and proper to me. Nicely done!-RHM22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I've made both of those changes. Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:AlexanderCampbell.png: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • LOC just says "between 1865 and 1880", like most of the Brady-Handy collection. I updated the file. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. Just a few quibbles.
  • "to select a presidential nominee" well, true, but also a vice presidential, and also a party platform, which could be as important as the candidate. Can a phrasing be found that implies that there are other things a convention does?
  • Fixed? I doubt think there's a concise way to say it, so I just said it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the 1860 presidential campaign, Butler sought compromise with the slave power and endorsed Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi for president." Was Jeff Davis running for president? US president that is? If it was pre-conventions, possibly mention that and who Butler supported in the general election.
  • I didn't think Davis was running, but you know how it was in those days. Nobody ran, they just stood around and waited to be nominated (of course, we both know that's not the whole truth). The source on Butler didn't say, and it didn't say who he ended up voting for, though it mentions he became a Republican within a year. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • " in 1878 he ran for Governor of Massachusetts as an independent Greenbacker with Democratic support" Did he win?
  • He lost. I added that fact. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Did Wright not seek re-election in 1862 or was he defeated?
  • The sources aren't completely clear, but I think he didn't run. A Democrat replaced him, so if he lost, it was at the party nomination stage. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Other contenders
  • "Several other favorite son candidates" question need for word "other".
  • "The Committee on Permanent Organization voted to make Richard F. Trevellick, a Michigan trade union organizer, the permanent chairman of the convention." presumably the vote of the entire convention was needed to make him permanent chairman? In which case the "ask" should be "recommend" with an "as" before "the permanent"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point. Fixed. That should be all of them. Thanks, Wehwalt, for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Richie Farmer[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The tragic story of a hometown hero turned basketball icon who parlayed his fame into political office (Commissioner of Agriculture, naturally!) but abused the public trust and now sits in federal prison. This article just passed a GA review with few issues, and I hope to take it to FA status and claim a much-delayed WP:FOUR award. (I created the article a few days after joining Wikipedia in 2006!) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments on sources:
    • Overall the formatting is good. Things are quite consistently formatted.
    • A concern I do have is the level you've relied on the Lexington Herald-Leader for your sources. The first footnote that isn't an article from that paper is n57. I estimate that you've used that paper for 220 of your sources out of the 262 footnotes, or about 84% of your citations. I'm not saying that the paper isn't a high-quality reliable source, but this level of reliance for a state-wide politician makes me wonder if you've truly surveyed the full literature about the man.
      • I used the NewsBank access I have through my library. It has the Herald-Leader, but unfortunately, not the (Louisville) Courier-Journal. Those are the main papers in the state. It also has the Messenger-Inquirer, which serves Owensboro, the third largest city in the state by population until Bowling Green passed it last Census. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Speaking again of n57, etc, where is The Messenger-Inquirer published? It's fairly standard, in my experience, to list a publication location for newspapers unless the city is part of the newspaper name. For the Lexington Herald-Leader, the location is obvious: Lexington. For The Messenger-Inquirer, we have no clue. You can easily add this with |location= in the citation template. The same applies to The Kentucky Post in n117, etc.
      • Done. I didn't know including location was standard practice. I will do that from now on. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • In n89, you missed a "|" character, so the newspaper name and parameter is appearing on the end of the article title.
    • In n96, no newspaper name has been provided.
    • On n182, I think you have a typo. Shouldn't "Couch a True Diaper Dandy in New Role as Father..." be "Coach a True Diaper Dandy in New Role as Father..."?
    • On nn201&204, no location for The Gleaner, and no page number.
      • Location fixed, but NewsBank omits the page number in the Gleaner, for some reason. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • For n262, WKYT is listed as the publisher. As with newspapers, a location should really be provided.
    • Several headlines are using dashes to separate the title from the subtitle. Isn't it more common to use a colon for this? Did the Lexington Herald-Leader actually use a dash? (And according to The Chicago Manual of Style, if there is a second subtitle, it would be separated from the first with a semicolon.)
      • I can only say how NewsBank renders the titles, which actually appears to use a hyphen to separate title from subtitle. I figure that's short for a dash, since there is no dash key on the keyboard. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Image question: are there really no photographs of the man that can be used? As it is, the article is woefully under-illustrated, with just a photo of his former coach and his retired jersey. Have you tried contacting the university to see if they have a photo they'd be willing to license? The state government? Checked Flickr and similar photo-sharing sites to see if anyone has posted any photos that could be licensed?

    Imzadi 1979  17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

    • I have not searched Flickr or contacted UK or state government about licensing an image, but I have searched for his federal mugshot, which would be PD, but I couldn't find that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Imzadi1979: Very sorry to have been so long about addressing all of these. I expected to have plenty of time to work on them on vacation, but I got here and discovered the wi-fi is garbage. Got my first truly reliable connection this morning. Will be glad to follow up on items that require it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I did the Good Article review for this one, and all my quibbles were resolved there. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I've done review and would love to support it, Since it should must have few more images (original) of different location that will make article bit more interesting to readers. --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Xx (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. The first FAC did not reach a consensus. The last FAC I withdrew because of a conflict with another editor. A few tweaks and additions since then. Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

Image review: File:Xx album cover.svg seems fine. File:The xx performing at Brighton Komedia in March 2010 11.jpg seems fine. File:The xx - Heart Skipped a Beat sample.ogg is a non-free sound with a good rationale. File:The xx Dec. 2 09.jpg seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Background: Are there no articles for the band members? "rehearsed quietly with Smith and Qureshi in their bedrooms so they would not disturb the rest of the household" seems like gossip or trivia. "The group worked with producers such as Diplo and Kwes...", did they work with several others as well? If not, mention them without the "such as". Cambalachero (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No articles for the band members except Jamie xx, who is linked in the article. Their rehearsal habit ties into the musical aesthetic mentioned throughout the rest of the article, IMO. Yes, the group worked with "a few others" also. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Recording and production: "chose to record" is wordy, just say that they recorded there. "...and were the first act to record there" should be in a new sentence, and have a reference. The "McDonald felt it was important for the singers..." sentence should end with a reference. "He occasionally processed the sampler through an effects unit such as a Roland RE-201", again, is the "such as" appropiate? "Overproduce" is a common word, and should be unlinked. The event of the burglars seems like trivia as well, as nothing came out of it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed "chose to record". I revised it, but a new sentence would be too short and inhibit the flow for readers IMO. Frost 2011 is cited at the end of the passage it supports, so there's no need to repeat citations. I reduced the "such as" throughout the article and unlinked "overproduce". I would not have added that line about the burglars if two notable sources on this article's topic hadn't discussed it, so I figured it was notable enough based on its third-party coverage. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Music and lyrics: "Music journalists" is a common term and should be unlinked, unless you talk about some specific journalist. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I unlinked it. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Promotion: Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Release and reception: Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Touring: Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cambalachero! Anything else needs attention, or do you feel now it should be promoted? Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Support The prose quality is excellent and it covers all of the necessary subjects with fine sourcing. I think this article has been thoroughly reviewed at this point and meets all the requirements. Shii (tock) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Support As per above. The prose quality is top-notch and the referencing is on-point. Yeah, seems good to me :) Soulbust (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I agree with the two users above me. Great choice for an FA. Aria1561 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A Quiet Night In[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"A Quiet Night In", the second episode of dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9, was half an hour of (almost) dialogue-free comedy. The Times TV critic David Chater called it "the funniest, cleverest, most imaginative and original television I have seen for as long as I can remember - one of those fabulous programmes where time stands still and the world around you disappears", but someone subsequently wrote in to the publication to say they "were horrified" with the episode. That might give you an idea of what to expect. I've plundered a variety of sources, rewatched the episode several times and massaged the prose repeatedly. I would like to thank Grapple X (talk · contribs) for a GA review and Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) for a peer review. I look forward to your comments. This may be a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Prose comments

  • Joyce Veheary and Kayvan Novak also star. - I'd put this somewhere else, as it's in between two sentences related to the plot
  • I generally prefer "Plot" being before "Production", but I guess the MOS doesn't require it.
    • I prefer it my way around as it offers a rough chronology- it was made, it was broadcast, there was a response. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film says "There is no defined order of the sections." I do have sympathy for your way around- I think a certain degree of author's choice is appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep, agree (hence "I guess the MOS doesn't require it".) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • He looks to the fake painting, - Don't recall a fake painting being mentioned before this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • "Ray cuts away the canvas and replaces it with kitchen roll." Does this need to be stressed a bit more? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • My mistake. If others miss this, it might be worth emphasis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Critics generally responded positively to "A Quiet Night In". David Chater, writing for The Times, gave an extremely positive review, - positive/positive — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Media review

Thanks, Chris, for the review. It's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice article. A commendable job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, however I have one small concern regarding the use of "darker elements" in the lede paragraph. I am sure that those of us raised as native Anglophones will understand this, but will others from other socio-cultural backgrounds necessarily understand it ? Could we use a less ambiguous term perhaps ? If people disagree with me on this, that is fine, but just thought that I'd raise the point as it was popping up in my mind. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I would really recommend that the weblinks here are archived, as for instance I did for the Uncle David article. Otherwise there may be a situation in the future where those links have died, and thus text will have to be removed from the article itself, which might potentially threaten its GA/FA rating. I always think that it's better to stay on the safe side in a scenario such as this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • One more thing ! In the reception section, there is a caption stating "Gerald eats his soup Eddie and Ray attempt to enter the house"; this doesn't make much sense as it currently stands so a small revision is probably required. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Midnightblueowl, it's thoroughly appreciated. I've fixed the caption, and will hopefully get to your other comments tomorrow (or, if not, at the weekend- a lot going on). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I've switched "darker" to "more sinister". I think that perhaps loses some of the subtly of the original wording, but I recognise that "dark" is a little euphemistic. I've also archived the majority of URLs. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

SMS Königsberg (1905)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Another German commerce raider from World War I, though one less famous (and less successful) than Emden - this ship was eventually bottled up in the Rufiji River in German East Africa and sunk by British warships, though Königsberg‍ '​s war was not yet over, her crew (and her guns) having gone to join von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerrilla campaign. I'd like to run this article on the main page on 11 July 2015, to mark the centenary of the ship's sinking. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Königsberg_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Cut the link and updated the dead-tree source citation. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The German cruiser then radioed the German steamer Zieten from heading to the Suez Canal where she would have been confiscated. seems clunky. Perhaps "Looff radioed the German steamer Zieten to warn her against using the Suez Canal, where she would have been confiscated."?
    • Yeah, that is a little rough - I like your wording.
  • whose officers also, why "also"? Had another ship mistaken her for a British cruiser?
    • Don't know ;)
  • When a British cruiser is mentioned, patrolling along the coast, Pegasus is then identified when the German ship attacks her. Could she not be identified as Pegasus in the preceding para? It just jars a bit.
    • See what I've added - what I was trying to get at was that the Germans didn't know which ship it was
  • what type of ship was Weymouth? A cruiser, but perhaps it could be rendered as "The cruisers Chatham, Dartmouth and Weymouth"?
    • A good point.

more to follow. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "Sopwiths"? Do we know what type?
    • Unfortunately not.
  • suggest Hyacinth intercepted Kronborg as she approached, and chased her to Manza Bay
    • A good idea.
  • through the Brandenburg Gate to celebrate them and their ship perhaps "through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to celebrate their service and that of their ship."?
    • Sounds good to me.
  • no alt text for images (not an ACR requirement).
  • reflinks and dab checks ok
  • That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

Nominator(s): – PeeJay 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This nomination is a continuation of the previous one, which was closed prematurely due to my inability to respond to comments as I had been blocked for two weeks. Hopefully that will not be a problem this time. I still believe the article passes all the FA criteria, despite comments at the previous FAC discussion. I was able to respond to all of User:Brianboulton's concerns last time, although he didn't do a full review of the article, and User:EddieHugh's comments were largely based on his opinion of what constitutes "too much detail". I believe the article contains just the right amount of detail on every aspect of the subject; some might say this is too much, but everything included in the article is likely to be something that at least someone reading the article would be looking to find out. Furthermore, everything is adequately sourced, satisfying criterion 1c. – PeeJay 17:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

I'm inclined to oppose at this stage, sorry. Brianboulton's review the first time around said "further copyediting is needed" but this broader copyediting doesn't appear to have taken place. I sampled three sections myself: pre-match, team selection and post-match. There were some prose glitches, which are fixable quickly. But there are some more endemic problems such as inaccurate representation of sources (see the Ferguson and Giggs quotes below), use of sources of dubious reliability (Daily Mail, UEFA), and possible original research (eg "This went against the predictions of some pundits"). The article is certainly a very good one and undoubtedly GA quality. But I think it is falling short of the FA bar and needs a good solid line-by-line review before it is ready. My sample comments:

  • "There were originally concerns over the players' safety on the new field" - were these concerns legitimate enough to warrant a mention in the article? Is the Daily Mail a reliable source for this purpose?
    • The Daily Mail is a notoriously unreliable newspaper, except when it comes to football. Their sport coverage is remarkably good for a newspaper that routinely comes up with sensationalist headlines. In this case, the quote about the field being unsafe came originally from Sky Sports News, but since I wasn't able to find an archived video of Steve McMahon saying those words on television, I felt the Daily Mail source was adequate. The quote they sourced themselves was from the head groundsman, who merely said there "might be a bit of a bobble". – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "based their decision on a number of factors, including stadium capacity, safety and security facilities, and accessibility - might be worth mentioning, as the source does, that "commercial potential" was also a factor. I wonder, too, if sourcing this to UEFA is appropriate. They are hardly likely to admit to any political factors being relevant to its decision...
    • That's true, but I wasn't able to find any sources criticising UEFA's choice either. Most of the sources were pretty routine in that they simply said "Moscow will host the 2008 final and these are the reasons UEFA gave in their press release". – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In recent years, each Champions League final has been given an identity of its own with a unique logo, design concept, and overall theme inspired by the cultural and historical heritage of the host city." - This is copy-pasted from the source.
    • Weird, I thought I'd fixed that earlier. Must have been something I meant to do but forgot about. Regardless, it's fixed now. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "As has taken place for every Champions League final since 1997, a ceremonial handover of the UEFA Champions League trophy took place" - Grating repetition of "took place"
    • Good spot. Thanks. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "former player and current technical operations director Leonardo" - current is confusing. Does it mean as of 2008 or as of now? Also, this is a massive sentence.
    • Done. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ""Midday Champions League Ticket Sales" (Chelsea) is a dead link for me.
    • Crap. I only added that link in January and it was hard enough to find a source for Chelsea's ticket allocation policy as it was. What can I do? – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Among the celebrities who did not travel..." - the relevance of this sentence escapes me.
    • They're famous fans of the two clubs, and in Coe's case, he had a notable reason for missing the final. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Any non-UEFA sources available about the match ball? I'm sure Adidas paid UEFA handsomely to have their ball used, so the use of UEFA sources in this section troubles me a bit.
    • I'll see what I can find, but most sites that talk about the ball are blogs or photo galleries. I think the small amount of info in this article, plus the fact that I haven't made any claim to the technical qualities of the ball, make it OK to source the info about its design to UEFA. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "As per tradition" - the source doesn't mention this as a tradition. Is it a tradition, a preferred practice, or a rule? Is it necessary to say in the article?
    • I don't know if it's rule or just coincidence, but every European Cup final has had linesmen/assistant referees from the same country as the lead referee. Either way, I've removed the "as per tradition" bit. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "his only real decision being" - source? I don't think the Guardian article supports this.
    • Reworded. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "This went against the predictions of some pundits" - the only source is Pleat, who would not be "some pundits".
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ferguson predicted that his substitutes might have a big impact on the match" - but his actual quote is "The substitutes you make have got to have an impact, which is why I have to give a lot of consideration to the type of player I want on the bench. If I have to use them I hope they make an impact". This sounds more hopeful than predictive.
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ryan Giggs' pre-match prediction that he would not make the starting line-up". As above, the actual quote falls some way short of a prediction: "I can't be sure I'll play"
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "reportedly deciding over Grant's job within four days after the final" - is this just Daily Mail gossip?
    • I don't think so. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Grant was officially sacked three days after the match." - what is the point, then of the statement that his job was being "decided over" within four days of the match?
    • Because it's saying they were going to decide within four days and then they decided on the third day. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "watch the game on outdoors" ?
    • Thanks. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Five police were also said to have been injured" - said by whom?
    • Fixed. – PeeJay 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks good after the last fixes, and it is well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 22:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I cannot say how much I love this article. I'm happy that others have read through it and improvements have been made. This article was the best thing in the topic area months ago and is now even better with the extra eyes and suggestions. I am not fond of the teams but the primary editor did a fantastic job.Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]


Nominator(s): IJReid (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 16:49, 28 Marsh 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the best known sauropods, often known as Brontosaurus in popular culture. Four species are known, and this genus has undergone major revisions in the past. The article was expanded by myself and LittleJerry, and recently passed a GA review. The appearance of this dinosaur has stayed relatively stable, with only the head changing greatly since it was described. Many images can be found of two of the species, while the others are only known from one or two skeletons. IJReid discuss 16:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments:Support: This is my first time reviewing a Featured Article, so take everything with a grain of salt:
  • The "Paleobiology" section is the largest section of the article, but the lead is dominated by a summary of the "Description" section. Also, the lead section does not discuss the "In popular culture" section. (except perhaps the brief phrase saying it was once classified as Brontosaurus ).
I believe there is reasoning for this. The popular culture section is actually the least important section (in my opinion no articles should have them) and most mentions in it are of the common occurrences of "Brontosaurus" in popular books and movies. Most pop-culture info is not truly accurate, and therefore does not need mention in the lead. I will add more paleobiology info, just know that paleobiology is all assumptions based on description, which is why the latter is more important. IJReid discuss 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Added paleobiology info to lead. IJReid discuss 23:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
A brief mention of cultural impact would be in order, the intro is supposed to summarise the entire article, after all. "Brontosaurus" has had more of a cultural impact than most other dinosaurs, probably only surpassed by Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The following statements are confusing:
  • "Among the species is A. excelsus, long considered to be separate under the genus Brontosaurus" I know it is saying that it was considered to be part of a separate genus, named Brontosaurus, but it was hard to process at first.
Reworded. IJReid discuss 23:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "An alternative method, using limb length and body mass, found Apatosaurus to stop growing at 70 years of age, growing 520 kg (1,150 lb) per year." it almost sounds like this is saying that it grows 520kg/year after stopping growing, which doesn't make sense. In context of the previous sentences, this makes more sense, but perhaps it should be more clear that it is growing 520kg/year on average until 70.
  • Which is the reference for the origin of A. louisae's name? The nearby references are not freely available, and their titles do not suggest they would contain this information.
Holland 1916 ( Not the full reference, which I cannot find online. The best one is probably Gilmore (1936), which is cited in the article and is on A. louisae. The etymology is found in Parsons (199-), cited in the article. IJReid discuss 23:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Importance of Morrison formation is not described. From the writing, it could be one place where Apatosaurus has been found, or the only place.
I am confused. In the first paragraph of Discovery it mentions it was the formation of the Bone Wars, and the wording in the lead seems to be clear. IJReid discuss 23:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
My real question is, have Apatosaurus fossils been found anywhere besides the Morrison formation? It seems from the lead that this is true, but I didn't see it explicitly mentioned in the article. It seems like one of the preexisting references would mention this fact. If I have again missed an important detail, let me know.Brirush (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Added in Discovery. IJReid discuss 01:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Spot checks on reference style and image attribution seemed fine for criteria 2,3.
  • Besides above comments, all of criteria 1 (well-written, well-researched, etc.) and 4 (length) seem satisfied.

Brirush (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for this, just let it be known that the article is not completely done with corrections and changes. IJReid discuss 23:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Nicely done, I enjoyed reading that, just a few comments and queries:
There are various terms that could do with wikilinking or perhaps even replacing with more common terms manus coosified and Rugosities for starters. Is coosified a typo or rare variant of co-ossified?
I believe that this is fixed. I think that coosified was a spelling error, but I'm not certain. IJReid discuss 16:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Re "Many of the dinosaurs of the Morrison Formation are the same genera as those seen in Portuguese rocks of the Lourinha Formation (mainly Allosaurus, Ceratosaurus, Torvosaurus, and Apatosaurus)" I see this as contradicting "All Apatosaurus specimens are from the Morrison Formation."
Fixed, Apatosaurus is not present but has a close counterpart. IJReid discuss 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Can we add something about reproduction? Even if only that scientists assume they reproduced by laying eggs but haven't yet found any eggs they can be sure are from apatosaurus.
I added info on the juvenile Apatosaurus specimens known. IJReid discuss 22:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Would you mind checking "Trackways of Apatosaurus and other sauropods show that they walked an average of 30–40 km (19–25 mi) per day. A study found that they might have been able to walk 20–30 km (12–19 mi) per hour.[6] The slow locomotion of sauropods may be due to the minimal muscling or recoil after strides", I'd like to know how they can work out how far these things could walk in a day from a few tracks, especially if they are saying that they walked fast enough to do their daily travel in 90 minutes. Also if you are quoting that as slow walking speed it might be an idea to include a comparator, it is not slow compared to my walking speed.
I think I have fixed this. IJReid discuss 02:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, that works for me. ϢereSpielChequers 15:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Also I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki.... Thanks for writing this and bringing it to FAC ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll ping LittleJerry for these last two, as he was the one that did most of the paleobiology work. IJReid discuss 16:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps something has been published about the juvenile specimen(s)? I'm pretty sure no eggs are known, and it would probably be hard to find a source stating that Apatosaurus specifically laid eggs, as this is assumed for all dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I suggest that nominating this article is a bad idea given the recent claims that Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus are in fact two different species. It looks like the paleontological community is about to revise the classification of the whole of the Diplodocidae clade with Elosaurus and Eobrontosaurus being reclassified as Brontosaurs. Whatever emerges as a result of the new morphological study, this article should reflect the latest findings. My knowledge of dinosaurs is limited to reading books about them when I was a kid so perhaps an expert in this field should consider, at the very least commenting on the latest finding, or even removing the Brontosaurus to Apatosaurus redirect and start a new page for Brontosaurus. See and

They have always been considered separate species, this study revives Brontosaurus as a separate genus. See discussion here[8], it is too preliminary to split the articles, as this is only one study (it is very possible that other studies will have different results), so we should wait for a scientific consensus. But the finding should certainly be addressed by this article. But even if this was split, it wouldn't be too bad, mainly the history and popular culture sections would be affected. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Dinoguy2 has done a good job at splitting the two articles, so the reviewers (Brirush, WereSpielChequers) may want to take a look at the article again to see if they still think it flows. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I'm a little tied up in real life at present, so it could be a while before that happens. ϢereSpielChequers 08:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
That's completely alright, I guess this FAC will stay open for a while, so no rush. FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the first review in September 2014, the article underwent a copyediting treatment and recently received a peer review. 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) 18:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support meets FA standards now Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. After a few small edits, I can once again affirm my confidence in this article's suitability for FA status. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

Some initial comments:

  • Is there a source for '"City of Angels" was met with general acclaim from music critics.'? As a summary sentence, it is a nice way to commence the section of the article, but if there is no source it is surely original research. The equivalent section for the music video doesn't have a summary sentence of this kind, and it looks fine.
  • Kerrang! magazine says "Upon the album release, City of Angels was widely acclaimed by most commentators". I've put this as a source. I've also found a source for the critical acclaim the music video received, adding a summary sentence in the reception section.
  • '"City of Angels" received critical acclaim from music critics, who commended the composition, the track's lyrical content, and Leto's vocal performance.' - what about the negative reviews? This sentence implies that the critics were unanimous. (Also, consider the repetition of "critic*").
  • I've put "City of Angels received general acclaim from music critics", as the critical reception says. 'general acclaim' means that it got mostly positive reviews against a couple of mixed ones.
  • "The video was positively reviewed by critics who complimented the simplicity and cohesion with the song's message." - a comma would help here.
  • Fixed.
  • The "Composition and theme" section gives us an overview of the form of the song, but only until the chorus that follows the first verse. Can this be completed? Anything about keys/harmony?
  • As noted in the previous FAC, there's no sheet music published at and I couldn't examine the song's structure in depth. I've added something about the bridge and the drum-heavy climax.--Earthh (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. There are a few too many passive-voice sentences and a few too many unattributed quotes (eg "gently burbling synthesisers") for my taste. I'd encourage these to be tweaked but would not oppose over them. It's a fairly strong article - I don't mind the number of (attributed) quotes, which was criticised in the last FAC. The only question to my mind is whether the prose, which is certainly competent, amounts to "engaging". All the other criteria are satisfied, and on balance I think the prose is good enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Media & source check by Retrohead[edit]

  • Single artwork is properly licensed; other images are under free use.
  • The audio file length is 27s, but the caption says it's 30. You may also reduce the audio quality to 60–70 kbps.
  • Reduced.
  • Did you change the description (in the article) to fit the actual audio length?
  • Done.
  • Is LadyGunn (ref 4) an appropriate source for FAs? I see the interview is credited, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
  • As noted in the peer review, LadyGunn is an independent magazine and that reference is an interview with Leto. I could remove it if it isn't reliable enough.
  • If you can find a better reference, go for it. But if this was resolved at the PR, I wouldn't make an issue of it.
  • Got it.--Earthh (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Other than that, the references seem properly formatted and reliable. You have my support on the third criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

George Pickingill[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an alleged "cunning man", or vocational folk magician, who lived in the Eastern English county of Essex during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A curious figure, local folk tales grew up around him and his alleged magical powers, which included the ability to command both animals and imps to do his bidding. The article has been massively expanded by myself over the past year or so, and has successfully passed GAN and also received a peer review. Those editors with an interest in the eccentric and the odd might enjoy reading this one, as will those with a more specific interest in the history of magic, witchcraft, and esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • If it's obvious from the caption who is pictured, you don't need to actually say "pictured"
  • File:George_Pickingill,_Cunning_Man.jpg: use {{non-free biog-pic}} instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support (with a caveat). I had my say at PR, and, having just read through the article again, I can say with confidence that it is of a very high quality. Midnightblueowl should be commended. I have made some final tweaks, and there are a last few comments below.

  • "by threatening to set white mice on them, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune" As written, the "rodent" being described is the "them" (that is, the victim of the mouse attack). This needs to be reworked a little, but I'm not sure I can see any easy way to do it.
    • I've changed this to "threatening to set upon them white mice, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune". It is not necessarily ideal, so if any other editors had further suggestions, then they would be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ward suggested that many of the stories regarding Pickingill's magical activities were adopted from those of a genuine Essex cunning man, James Murrell." Do you mean adapted or adopted, here?
    • Both fit in there actually, although I think that adapted probably works a little better, so I'll change it there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In this, his claims fitted within the historical framework of the witch-cult hypothesis as propagated in the works of Margaret Murray." Is it worth noting that the witch-cult hypothesis is discredited?

My one remaining concern is with the reliability of a particular source, but I am willing to defer if others do not share my concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bill Denny (Australian politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Bill Denny, a South Australian Labor politician and former Attorney-General who enlisted to fight in World War I at the age of 43. He served on the Western Front and was awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Denny became Attorney-General in two more Labor Governments after the war, and served in the South Australian Parliament from 1900 to 1905 and 1906 to 1933. It has been brought through GA and Milhist A-Class since it was created on 17 January 2015. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

[Support. All my comments below have been addressed. I think the article is now sufficiently comprehensive in that it outlines some of Denny's major policy initiatives. The only hesitation on my part is whether the prose amounts to "engaging". At times the article is a fairly bare chronology. But ultimately I don't think the prose is any less engaging than in a number of FAs I've recently seen promoted. And hopefully it will benefit from one or two other commenters dropping by and picking up prose matters to be further improved. So I'm happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)]

My most substantive point is that the article is short on detail about what Denny actually did as a Government Minister: the policies he pursued; his successes; his failures. This is especially the case for his second and third stints as a Minister, about which the reader learns very little at all. Other comments:

  • The lead suggests that the whole of his parliamentary career was as a ULP/ALP member, which doesn't seem to be correct. He seems to have also had stints as an independent and PLP member.
  • "He was again Attorney-General in the Labor governments led by John Gunn (1924–26) and Lionel Hill (1930–33)" - Missing Robert Richards.
  • There seems to be conflict between the ADB and the 1919 Sunday Times article about when he started to work for the newspaper. The former says 1896; the latter says 1893. Any reason why the former is preferred?
  • "When a by-election was held for West Adelaide on 17 March 1900..." - I think this sentence tries to do too much. Split?
  • "In the 1902 state election the electoral district of West Adelaide was abolished" - do you abolish a seat in an election?
  • "In 1903, he began studying law at the University of Adelaide, and was defeated at the 1905 state election, gaining only 9.9 per cent of the votes" - the and implies a relationship between the two clauses of the sentence, but there is none. Perhaps take the law studies and the 1908 admission out of where they are and put them as a separate sentence, admittedly out of chronological order, at the end of the paragraph? As it is, it gets in the way of the political stuff.
  • Is there any story behind why he started as a ULP candidate, then became an independent, and then rejoined the ULP?
    • Not that I'm aware of, but I've included a mention of where Howell observes he "abandoned" his former liberalism. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Australian Government" - as an Oz lawyer, I prefer "Commonwealth Government" but happy if you ignore this.
  • "These included the Advances for Homes Act 1910, and in his speeches he highlighted that many workers were faced with high rents and poor conditions. It allowed for 80 per cent of the value of a property to be advanced to a worker at 4.5 per cent interest over 36.5 years" - These two sentences seem out of order. Shouldn't we understand what the Act did before learning about what Denny said in his speeches?
  • "long, spindly legs" - who said this? There are two footnotes so the reader really has no idea.
  • I think we need a geographical location for the wounding in the body of the article, not just the lead. In the body, Egypt is the last location mentioned, which confuses the reader because, of course, it happened in France.
  • "He was subsequently invested with the Military Cross" - this is a long sentence and starts in the passive voice, so is quite difficult to digest.
  • "with a similar proportion of the vote" - "similar proportions"?
  • "During this period he carried several significant legislative changes." - this seems to be a very significant period in Denny's career; I think we need to know what these legislative changes were. It makes the next para, which talks about opening war memorials, seem trivial.
  • "address was punctuated with applause" - it would be good to know who said this without needing to follow the footnote. Although... is this sentence needed at all? It is just about one memorial.
    • I think it goes to how he was a rare beast, being a returned Labor pollie. The quote is from Inglis et al, but I don't see the need to attribute inline. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any explanation for his unusually strong performance at the 1930 election?
  • "Appointed Attorney-General for the third time in the Labor government of Lionel Hill" - this doesn't seem right; the reader initially thinks it was his third stint as A-G in the Hill government.
  • "Lang Labor Party" - I'd suggest just "Lang Labor" as there was no such thing as the "Lang Labor Party".
  • Any explanation for why he lost his seat in 1933, after such a long run of electoral success? Again, this seems to be one of those significant career moments that would warrant more detail.
  • "Denny wrote a further autobiographical book, A Digger at Home and Abroad which was published in 1941" - missing the close to a set of parenthetical commas? [I'd change it myself but I wasn't completely sure]
  • "Mr. Ephriam "Brownie" Tripp" - any reason why he gets a "Mr."?
  • Nice ending to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review and comments. This is my first FAC on a politician, I'm mainly a Milhist guy, so bear with me. I'll start working though your comments and raise any queries as I go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Two quibbles with the above: there absolutely was a (formal) Lang Labor Party in South Australia, and they swept out all the incumbents in Denny's three-member seat in 1933, which is why that sentence says as much as can be said. I felt that the reason Denny lost in 1933 was implied there - the PLP was obliterated and nearly all its members were defeated - but that's one point that could probably be fixed by making it explicit in one sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that. Lang Labor doesn't mention the SA version of the party, which makes it a slightly problematic wikilink. Maybe we could add something brief to that article? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
          • There should at least be some mention in Lang Labor (though it's not something I feel like I can slip in easily: it's a narrative article entirely structured around Lang's shenanigans in NSW), but I should really getting around to writing Lang Labor Party (South Australia): it's a significant part of telling the story of 1930s-era South Australian politics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Perhaps I should redlink it for now? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
              • That sounds fine to me. Redirecting that title to Lang Labor would be the other option but that article says nothing about the SA party. Incidentally, there is a 1969 article "Lang Labor in South Australia" by Don Hopgood in the journal "Labour History" (vol 17), which seems to be available through JSTOR. Not relevant to the FAC but thought it worth noting somewhere as it would seem to be useful for filling in the red link. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
                • If it needs to be bluelinked for this to pass (I am an old biddie in Wikipedia terms and can't keep up with changing criteria) I'll see what I can do about digging that JSTOR article up and making it happen in the next couple days. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
                • No, it doesn't need to be blue-linked to pass. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've had FAs promoted with red links in the past. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Tiny quibbles re the lede and the most recent edit:

  • Why the scare quotes around Parliamentary Labor Party?
    • My understanding was that it wasn't really a party, per se, with grassroots members, more a grouping of members of Parliament. But if that is incorrect, happy to remove them from the lead and body.
      • They were a bloc of members of parliament, and considering they contained what had previously the entire Cabinet had to have significant grassroots support in e.g. campaigning in 1933. I think they're definitely a party (they certainly contested the 1933 election as one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead doesn't state when he joined the Labor Party, and essentially suggests that it could have been anytime between 1900 and 1917 (this is important because he was only briefly an Ind. Liberal)
    • Actually, he was a member of the ULP when he ran unsuccessfully in 1899, then he ran as an independent liberal in 1900 and again in 1902 and 1905. I wouldn't say he was "briefly" an independent liberal, he won two elections and lost another as an independent liberal. Assuming that they were strict about party members not running against other party members, he must have resigned from the ULP after the 1899 election and before the 1900 by-election. He must have rejoined the ULP after the 1905 election and before the 1906 election, but I haven't found a source for the actual date.
      • Is there a way this could be explained better in the lede? I feel it's a little vague prior to 1917, and his earliest affiliations I don't think are in the infobox? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Have tried to make it clearer. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Looks good. Only further suggestion I'd have is clarifying the infobox re: his parties (it doesn't mention years or his PLP stint). The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Denny's expulsion had very little to do with him personally; he was expelled because the entire ministry was expelled for supporting the Premiers' Plan, and I think the sentence about him being ejected from the ALP could better reflect that The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990[edit]

Nominator(s): Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an Earth-grazing meteoroid that flew over Czechoslovakia and Poland on 13 October 1990 and left into space again. It was the first event of this type, when the meteor was captured from two sites, which enabled geometrical calculations of its orbit. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

Really just a few comments, I'm afraid. I'm still recovering from my broken ankle and don't have the time to conduct a thorough review.

  • Lead image caption:
    • "the light track across the picture going from the south to the north" could perhaps be improved since the track is not very visible and there is no indication of north, south or direction travelled on the image. Since south-to-north is clear in the body of the article, perhaps something like "the faint near-vertical track just to the right of the pole star" would be a better indication.
  • Similar events
    • What does "eccentric trajectories" mean in this context? Needs clarification I think. Perhaps "...a method for computing the grazing trajectories of such bodies, ..." may be clearer.
  • References
    • It looks as if Spurný 1994 requires payment for the full contents. Probably need to add the |subscription=yes parameter to this and any similar citations.

--Mirokado (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I did not know about the the subscription parameter before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Striking. --Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:EN131090_with_text.png: what is the source of the data used for this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    For the orbits of the meteoroid before and after, the data are simply those in the table in same section and the data for the orbits of the planets are those in the infoboxes on their articles or any other place where they can be found. Is it really necessary to mention this in the caption? --JorisvS (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not in the caption, but it should be added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Right, interesting topic. Reading now....

  • .. left into space again - this sounds odd - maybe "returned to space again"?
  • I'd put its mass in the lead, as otherwise I have no idea what "small" is at this point.
  • If possible, avoid isolated single-sentence paragraphs.
  • The encounter was observed both visually and photographically. - I think I'd remove this sentence and let following sentences speak for themselves.
  • It became visible at a height of 103.7 km south of Zlín, Czechoslovakia, approaching Earth's surface to only 98.67 km northeast of Wrocław, Poland and disappeared from the sight of the cameras at the height of 100.4 km north of Poznań, Poland, although it was probably still visible until the height of 110 km above the south Baltic Sea. - this sentence is really long - I'd split it.
Ok, I've done it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any more elaboration on fusion crust would be helpful.

Looks ok (I think), though is pretty short. Will think about what else it might need. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: I have copyedited it using your comments and have also found a few things myself that I've changed.[9] I'm currently not sure how to split up that sentence without breaking the flow of the content, do you have any suggestions? As for "fusion crust", would linking it (albeit to a glossary)[10] help? --JorisvS (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Linking it to the glossary is better than nothing. Doesn't need much really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose as I can't see any other improvements. FAs needn't be long if the topic matter is well-defined. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
  • the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions: was it the first captured from two different positions, or the first captured, and that happened to be from two different positions?
  • Both were equipped with all-sky fisheye objectives.: where's the citation for this?
  • who concluded that the body was practically not decelerated along the track: what does "practivally no decelerated" mean?
  • observed on 29 March 2006 above Japan: is this worth a redlink?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I agree with your copyedits and all your comments. I've redlinked the meteoroid above Japan and cited the piece about the all-sky fisheye objective (it was simply in the same reference as the sentence before it). The 1972 Great Daylight Fireball was also recorded on camera, so it's the former. How do you suggest we rephrase it? As for the deceleration, the source lists all 0 m/s2, except for one data point at the meteoroid's perigee, where it lists 1 m/s2. I find it hard to believe that it would be actually zero all that time and so suddenly jump to 1 and back again, so it must have something to do with the numerical accuracy of the calculation (but there is no comment on this in the source). So, "practically not decelerated" would mean "no deceleration to within the accuracy of the calculation". --JorisvS (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
How about something like "detected no deceleration"? For the two cameras bit, I can't think of an elegant way to handle it at the moment—ideally, it should be reworded, but I don't think it's a parituclarly important ambiguity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It is about a computer simulation, so I don't know how appropriate 'detected' really would be. What about using basically what I already said above, i.e. "who found no deceleration along the meteoroid's track to within the accuracy of the calculation, except for a very short time near perigee, when it was approximately 1 m/s2."? --JorisvS (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As for that bit of ambiguity, what about just removing "by cameras", because "recorded" already more or less implies as much, so "first recorded by cameras from two distant positions"? --JorisvS (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the version without "by cameras" is good. Another possibility might be "...first recorded by cameras that were located at two distant positions" (as opposite to "...first recorded by cameras, which were located at two distant positions"), but it is longer. Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The ambiguity doesn't come from the cameras, it's about what was first: "being recorded" or "being recorded from two locations". The wording could be parsed as the former. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

2003 Sri Lanka cyclone[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a previous FAC, where an editor did a useful copyedit (as well as provide some comments that I addressed). This is also an article for a basin that only has two other featured articles, so it would be useful as far as diversity goes to have another FA there, especially in such a deadly basin. Hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

The "Aftermath" section bothers me a bit in the way in which it pieces together news sources rather than from sources that are reliable after-the-fact overviews. This could be causing accuracy problems. The article says: "Collectively, the governments of Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia pledged or donated $1.46 million to Sri Lanka." You've arrived at that figure by adding up four different figures in this source. Is the figure in US dollars? And surely it wasn't done collectively; the article makes it quite clear the four governments operated separately. Later, we are told that "Both Canada and Australia sent about $100,000 to the local Red Cross in their respective currencies". The Australian aspect of the sentence is sourced to here. Are we sure this is not the same $100,000 (AUS) as the $65,000 (US?) mentioned earlier? If so, why the repetition? The press release says that the $100,000 was "immediate flood relief" so I suspect it is the same money. But I don't know. The problem is piecing sources together; we need an overview source. Then, in the following phrase, "and the latter country [Australia] worked to rebuild the damaged schools". That's an understatement. The country didn't "work"; according to the source, it gave A$400,000. Without mentioning that figure, the earlier figures of $100,000/$65,000 look stingy. the source also says the money was for "rebuilding of basic social services, including schools", so it was not at all limited to schools. Anyway, this is all to illustrate a broader point: that I'm not sure the use of sources is appropriate and it is liable to lead to inaccuracies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Eek. Regarding the adding them together, is "cumulatively" better? Regarding the dual usages of Australia, I apologize, I mistakenly included them twice, thanks. I found a better source that had all of the donations in the end, so I used that instead. Good call forcing me to get that :) I clarified that Australia sent money to UNICEF to service. Hopefully you think the aftermath is in better shape now. I don't believe there are any more inaccuracies in the aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the sporadic way in which I'm making mycomments. The overall view to which I'm inclined at the moment is as follows: that the section on the cyclone is quite strong, but the sections on its impacts are less so. As the following comments suggest, which concern only the section on the flooding in Sri Lanka, I think there are problems with accurate representation of sources as well as some prose glitches. Prose we can fix in a week or so across the article; the sourcing I'm less confident about, especially given that I'm just sampling sections at this stage:

The problem with the sourcing is that the storm wasn't named. It is very easy to look up information on Hurricane Sandy and find exactly what you're looking for. Not only was the storm not named, it was also a flood event in a non-western country, which makes sourcing even more difficult. I did the best I could to include as much as possible on the storm, but since the primary effects were flooding (which can theoretically happen at any time worldwide with enough rainfall, especially in the tropics), there isn't necessarily a definitive endpoint for the aftermath. It's not an article on Flooding in Sri Lanka, it's about one particular storm. Given that ReliefWeb collected all of these stories related to this event, I rely heavily on them. Hope that makes a little more sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "After the floods largely subsided, the World Socialist Web Site criticized the Sri Lankan government for not having better disaster management in place, as well as noting that deforestation and gem mining contributed to the landslides." - what makes the World Socialist Web Site a source worthy of inclusion in this article? I would have thought the views of the Red Cross, which are already there, are reliable and sufficient.
  • Per World Socialist Web Site, it is "the most widely accessed international socialist news site in the world", and they came third in the nearest elections to the elections. I wanted to include view points outside of the Red Cross and news organizations, and I happened to come across the source. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting anticipated the flood event three days in advance, and the first flood warnings were issued on May 17." This sentence, with its second clause in the passive voice, implies that the NCMRWF issued the flood warnings, which is surely not true. It might also help to note in the sentence that the NCMRWF is an Indian organisation; if the reader doesn't follow the wikilink they will assume it is Sri Lankan.
  • "Schools and public buildings were used as emergency shelters, and about 8,000 people evacuated on May 18." - the and just doesn't work here.
  • I rejiggered the sentence to - About 8,000 people evacuated on May 18, utilizing schools and public buildings as emergency shelters.Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The source for the death figures in Ratnapura is contemporaneous and very much subject-to-change ("The death toll so far is 256," said Karu Jayasuriya, head the government's disaster management team). I don't think we can rely on it to give solid and unqualified figures ("125 people died in Ratnapura.")
  • That source also had the final death toll, so the 125 in Ratnapura sounds legit. I'll add "at least" before "125" if you want, though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Come to think of it, I changed it to "at least" to be on the safe side. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "representing an estimated 20–30% loss for the year." - The source says that the loss is in low-grown tea crops. Dilmah tells us that low-grown tea is only one of Sri Lanka's three types of tea crop. So I don't think we can say there was a 20-30% loss of tea crop generally.
  • "Farmers in the region also lost some of their rice paddies to the high waters, although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged" - what is "the region"? The 3% figure is fairly meaningless without knowing.
  • The source said it referred to the areas affected by the floods. I said "farmers in the affected region" - that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Overall, the floods destroyed 24,750 homes and damaged 32,426 others" - see above for comment on using a contemporaneous and contingent source ([11])
  • Good call. The overall isn't perhaps the best word, and the source was only shortly after the floods ended. We know that the floods destroyed at least that many buildings, and the source is accurate, so I put "at least" in. Sadly, unlike the United States, Sri Lanka doesn't have the best disaster infrastructure (as the aftermath stated), so I couldn't find anything substantial after the fact for exactly how many houses were damaged/destroyed. I think the wording change works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The World Meteorological Organization later described the flooding as proof of an increase in more violent weather events" - the source says symptom, not proof (or similar). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you misread. The source said The World Meteorological Organization cited it as evidence for the increase of anomalous climatic extremes in recent years. I think proof and evidence are fairly synonymous. If you still disagree, I'll happily change it. Thanks again for the thorough review. I welcome all comments, and it means a lot to me that someone was willing to read what I said and critique it :) Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – looks great from writing and presentation standpoints (I've done some minor copyediting, during both this and the previous FAC). My only concern is whether the bit about the storm potentially/maybe/possibly having added in some small way to a heat wave really contributes anything of value. The source is extremely vague, and the attempts to paraphrase it are even more weaselly. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the copyediting! As for the heat wave, I agree it might not be the most typical thing to include in an article, but there is very little related to the storm outside of Sri Lanka. I think it's interesting how a storm can affect regions. The IMD specifically mentioned the heat wave as one of the effects, so hopefully the new wording works better, attributing the source to them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. There's a minor point about currency notation that I'll ask about at WT:FAC, but I'm not going to withhold a support over that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The infobox gives a three minute sustained wind speed that's higher than the one minute speed; surely that's an error?
  • Weirdly, it's not. The 3-minute winds are the official winds in the basin, while 1-minute winds are unofficial and provided by the JTWC. I've never really thought about how it's formatted, whether the readers might not understand what it means. The article explains who the estimates are from, but perhaps the infobox should as well. I made a post on the talk page for the project, asking others whether we should implement this change. Thanks especially for this feedback here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, that's weird. Struck, since it's correct, but I think a footnote might be handy, if a better way to present the data can't be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "the southwesterly fetch": I'm not familiar with this usage of "fetch"; could we get a link or note, or even a parenthetical explanation?
  • I didn't have that wording there, I changed it back to "flow", which I think most people would understand. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the article would benefit from a map of Sri Lanka showing some of the locations mentioned in the article. I don't think I'd oppose for the lack of this, but I think it would be very helpful to the reader.
  • Love that idea! I get to add an image, and it's useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Along the Gin River, flood waters inundated the surrounding terrain up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, which covered roadways and complicated evacuations": it's not clear what "which" refers to -- the flood waters, or the inundation -- so how about "Along the Gin River, flood waters inundated the surrounding terrain up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, covered roadways, and complicated evacuations".
  • "After previously wet conditions saturated soils": suggest "Since the previously wet conditions had saturated soils".
  • Thanks, I was never a fan of the previous wording there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Many roads were damaged, including that which links Ratnapura to Colombo": suggest "Many roads were damaged, including the one [or "the road"] which links Ratnapura to Colombo". I think you could re-use "road" here; it's a low-visibility word and the repetition would not be jarring.
  • I used your wording, but used "that" instead of "which". I think that's the correct usage here. My preference is avoiding using it twice, if that's ok. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. Re that vs. which, our article suggests both are correct. From my own observation it seems to be a personal preference, but I think either is fine in most non-restrictive clauses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged; this was not expected to affect the harvest": suggest "although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged, so no impact on the rice harvest was expected".
  • Another sentence that had caused slight troubles before, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Two different fatality figures are given: 254 and 260.
  • Ack, fixed. There was never a good, solid final damage total. That can sometimes happen for storms in Asia, and especially for the time period. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Across the island, floods related to the cyclone killed 260 people, becoming the worst floods in Sri Lanka in 56 years, when torrential rainfall struck the island in 1947": This wording doesn't quite work for me; and it's not clear if worst means most fatalities, which is what I would guess. How about "Across the island, floods related to the cyclone killed 260 people, the highest number of flood-related fatalities in Sri Lanka since torrential rainfall struck the island in 1947"?
  • After rechecking the source, I reorganized it, putting the 1947 bit earlier in the impact section. This gives it a better flow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "evidence of an increase in more violent weather events": the point in the sources is that this is thought to be due to global climate change, and I think this should be mentioned in the article if you're going to use this comment.
  • I just decided to remove that comment. I don't think it's worth the drama involved with climate change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest combining the first and third paragraphs of the "Elsewhere" section, to avoid a single-sentence paragraph.
  • I assume the "රු" symbol is the Sri Lankan rupee symbol. MOS:CURRENCY says to use the ISO 4217 standard when there is no widely known symbol; in this case that would be LKR, as far as I can tell.
  • A separate point is that I don't think you need to say "rupees" as well as using a symbol (though you might do something like that the first time the symbol is used, in order to give the reader the name of the currency); it would be like saying "$50 dollars". There are several examples of this and I don't think the article is consistent internally or with the MoS.
  • Now that I removed that sign, I think it should use "rupees". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    I think another tweak is needed. The first mention is "6 million rupees (LKR, $62,500 USD)"; if we're going to use "rupees" as the name for the currency then this looks good, giving the ISO abbreviation for definiteness, plus a link. But then I think subsequent mentions don't need to repeat LKR -- it can just be "15,000 rupees ($156 USD). Alternatively you could follow the MoS to the letter and make it "LKR 6 million (rupees, $62,500 USD)" and drop "rupees" thereafter. What you have now repeats both "LKR" and "rupees", which seems unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I changed it again. RS is another way of designating the currency, just as $ is for dollars. So now it's RS6 million (LKR, $62,500 USD), which is the same format for the rupees as it is for the dollars. Indicate what type of currency (rupees = RS, dollar = $) and the code. That is also in line with how we handle other currencies. Does that work? Your suggestion would make it be like USD 5 million, which just seems a bit odd IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't run into this before so I'm going to go ahead and support, and will post a note at WT:FAC asking for opinions from others who've used lesser-known currencies in their articles. I'm really not sure what the best format is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes the World Socialist Website's opinion worth mentioning? I accept that the site is a reliable source for the Fourth International's opinions, but is their opinion something a reader should be told about?
  • It provides criticism that I think is useful, in case readers were curious why it was as bad as it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    I see the value of that, but I'm not sure their opinion is particularly notable. A matter of opinion, though, so not a problem if you want to leave it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "while also commenting how": suggest either "while also pointing out how" or "while also commenting that".

Generally the article is in good shape; I expect to support once these points are taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the thorough review! Hope you like it more now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Yellow Evan[edit]

I support, a few quick things

  • "Early on May 11, the deep depression strengthened into a cyclonic storm – marked by maximum sustained winds of at least 65 km/h" mph? YE Pacific Hurricane
  • I added a notes section in general. See if it works now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In May 2003, the highest monthly rainfall in the country was 899 mm (35.4 in) at Gonapenigala Iranganie Estate." no need for "monthly" if you already mention the month (May). YE Pacific Hurricane
  • Alright. I changed the "in" to "Throughout" to make it clear that it's a monthly total without having to say the word. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • " of which 366.1 millimetres (14.41 in) fell over an 18‑hour period on May 17; at the same station, there was a peak hourly rainfall total of 99.8 mm (3.93 in).[9]" why are mm not abbreviated in one instance and are abbreviated elsewhere? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Happens to me all the time. No worries. :P YE Pacific Hurricane 02:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Camas pocket gopher[edit]

Nominator(s): Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... the Camas pocket gopher, a rodent, the largest in its genus, endemic to a small valley in the US state of Oregon. The article went through a thorough GA review by FunkMonk, with copy-editing done by Miniapolis. An essential diagram was provided by Philg88. This is the second nomination to FA. The first was archived primarily due to lack of interest. Some helpful comments provided by Ucucha during that review have been addressed. In the interim, the taxonomy section has been expanded to include a cladogram (provided by User:IJReid), based on some recent phylogenetic studies. --Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Review by Mkativerata[edit]

Support as my comments below have been substantially addressed. The only qualification to my support is that I'm no expert in the subject area, so I can't fully gauge comprehensiveness and accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)]

  • This is not too far off, in my view, subject to the qualification that I'm no expert in the field. The sourcing looks good (I did spot checks), as does the comprehensiveness. Just small issues, which I think will be fixable:
  • "However, contemporary naturalist H. M. Wight disagreed." With which of the two parts of the preceding sentence did he disagree? And why did he disagree with it?
  • fixed: I added a reference to Wight's exact statement in 1918 and why he made it, based on observations that they ate mostly dandelion greens. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is John Richardson? Without a wikilink, we need to know.
  • fixed. This got dropped in copyediting. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can a subgenus be established? (The answer may well be yes; just asking)
  • The source (Verts/Carraway Mammalian Species article, very first part of article in Context section) says it was "erected". Difference? Could also say "created"? I'm not particular. Thoughts? --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No biggie - mainly an existential question about whether subgenuses could be "established" as opposed to "discovered". --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You cite primary sources for saying that the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia were "echoing confusion". I'd only make this claim with a secondary source. Or is Allen, 1893 the source?
  • I'll double check Allen. This may just be my observation, that these specific texts "echoed" the confusion. I'm not sure Allen listed specifics. We can change wording.--Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • maybe fixed? So the Allen reference, page 56, second paragraph reads that Richardson's "determination was accepted by Coues and generally adopted by subsequent writers.". This is a confusing piece of history and Allen's account is the most lucid that I have found. It is a short paragraph and having a second set of eyes look at it would be helpful.--Gaff (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It just seems to me that linking the "confusion" to the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia might be OR without a source that says that those two publications were victims of the confusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble with this. The sentence currently reads, "This confusion was echoed by subsequent authors;(Allen, 1893) the article on gophers in the 1879 edition of the American Cyclopædia has an illustration captioned "California Gopher (Thomomys bulbivorus)", and the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (published during the late 19th century) mistakenly reports Thomomys bulbivorus as abundant along the central California coast." All 3 of these facts are sourced. Allen wrote that confusion was echoed (or rather the false determination was "adopted"). I agree that we cannot assume that he was referring to these two publications specifically, but both of them published wrong information. If we drop the semicolon in favor of periods, does that break up any implied connection enough? Something like, "Allen said some folks got it wrong.(cite) Publication A said wrong thing X.(cite) Publication B said wring thing Y.(cite)" --Gaff (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I reckon that's good enough. I think we can be afforded latitude to get away with that. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed This 21st century encyclopedia built by a bunch of hacks is getting it right... --Gaff (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2008, multilocus phylogenetic analysis results of the genus were published." By whom? This seems to be a critical moment in the gopher's history. Suggest active voice, as well.
  • fixed I can add more or less detail (names of reseachers, name of journal, UC Berkely, Harvard, etc). Don't want to overdo it since article is long already. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Carraway & Kennedy, currently footnote 27, has no page-number cites.
  • fixed
  • Thanks for the review! I can certainly take care of all of these concerns. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Very minor suggestion - in "Description" you're plugging a lot of dense information into the first and third paragraphs. I'd suggest breaking it up a bit more -subheadings, even? - but that's just a personal inclination.
  • I'll keep tinkering with this. Agree, some minor tweaks will help it flow better. I did learn how to do this with the teeth, which is kind of cool. --Gaff (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed.
  • The bit of information about the gray-tailed vole squatting in the Camas' tunnel seems a bit out of place - wouldn't it be better in the final para of the section, which deals with other mammals that share range and tunnels?
  • fixed agree. Since that is another of "my" GA articles, maybe I was placing it too much in the foreground. Sadly, most of the images that I had found for that article got deleted. Long story...
  • "reportedly twittering" - any need for reportedly?
  • fixed
  • "Due to the economic impacts of crop damage and destruction of grazing surfaces". Do we need a sentence before this, establishing that the Camas damages crops and grazing surfaces before moving on to what the consequences of that are? As it is, the section on "Human interactions" just seems to jump right in about a sentence ahead of itself. More generally, the first four sentences of the section each involve the passive voice, which makes it quite difficult to follow.
  • I'll work on this. It would be good to quantify the cost of economic damage.
  • fixed I added some economic data as well. --Gaff (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What is an "overall degree of threat impact"? This seems like a bit of jargon from somewhere else that might need to be put into plain English.
  • fixed
  • The final para shifts from the IUCN to Natureserve and then back to the IUCN. In between there is a sentence about "area of species distribution" directed to an unknown purpose. Maybe think about a restructure? Two paras? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed

Image review

  • "Ten day old" -> "Ten-day-old" in caption; otherwise all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
fixed thank you for the review --Gaff (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
* FYI: Additional image added File:Camassia quamash 6374.JPG. Source is good and it is a valued image on commons. --Gaff (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

This looks to be a well-written, reasonably comprehensive article. A few points I noticed:

  • "... smooth-toothed" or "Western pocket" gophers." - Why capitalise the "Western"?
  • fixed Some call T. mazama the western pocket gopher. The source on this is unclear and colloquial names for the entire genus are not essential to this species' article. So...drop the "western". --Gaff (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "Camas" is capitalised throughout the article. Why? It is not capitalised in the Camassia article.
  • Interesting. It is capitalized most everywhere that I have seen it. Richardson's original text (which the article links to) calls it the Camas Rat. I would prefer to call it Thomomys bulbivorus. I'll do some more research. Camas the city is across the Columbia, in Washington, not in the gophers territory. --Gaff (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed The definitive text on this animal in my opinion is Verts & Carraway Land Mammals of Oregon. I own a (signed) copy. On pages 224 and 231 they refer to it as the camas pocket gopher. Other sources are variable and in my opinion less trusted. So, I have changed it in the article.--Gaff (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "During the mid-1800s James Audubon called to the species the "Camas rat" - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
  • Fair enough. I need to do a bit to clarify and it will take a day or two. Its all there in The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America. They basically reject Richardson's assessment and reassign what was then a synonymous animal. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed I rewrote this paragraph. --Gaff (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The species' genetic diversity is similar to that other pocket gophers occupying a larger geographic range and diversity of habitat." - Missing word?
  • fixed
  • "The fur is a flat, dull brown with a dark, lead-gray underside." - What precisely does this mean?
  • Fixed It means that the sentence needed help. --Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of "Description" starts off talking about a single individual but moves into the plural half way through.
  • fixed
  • In some places where there are two citations covering one fact, they are not arranged in numerical order.
  • fixed by a gnome. I wonder if we could have a bot made to do that for us? I'll ask around.--Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "... pull the pouches towards the opening" - It is not clear what opening is referred to here. Perhaps you could use "forward".
  • fixed
  • "Although the gopher's front claws are too weak to dig through the clay ... , its large incisors and strongly procumbent orientation are well-adapted for this purpose." - Some clarification needed here as to what is procumbent.
  • Agreed. It is used all over the place in the literature, but seems idiosynratic. Protuberant likely captures the same meaning and that is the word I had used. Procumbent may mean tht they stick out more directly forward. I'm going with protuberant for now. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed.
  • "Androlaelaps fahrenholzi was reported is some studies" - This sentence needs attention.
  • fixed
  • That's all for now, while I consider whether the article is sufficiently comprehensive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reviewing this & I'll get to work. The article will benefit from the attention of somebody with so much experience on rodent articles.--Gaff (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The alterations made to the article since I first studied it seem satisfactory and I now support this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Pete[edit]

Good points.
Capitalization: My understanding of relate MOS principles would say "western" should not be capitalized. "Camas" is the name of a city in the area the gopher inhabits; this suggests to me why it may have been capitalized to begin with. I'm not sure where the name originates, and whether or not it should be capitalized in this context.
I don't think the numerical order of references is something that should impede FA ratification. If this is important to you, I'd suggest you just fix it.
I suspect Gaff will be in a better position than I to address the remaining points. I have not worked on species-related FAs, and have yet to read this article closely, so I don't have a strong opinion about this; but in general, I am impressed with the quality, and am inclined to think it's ready for FA (with a little attention to some of these details). -Pete (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • All good Thanks for the support & the fixes. --Gaff (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry[edit]

photo donated by an expert

  • As I recall, Gaff wrote to a gopher expert and asked if they would donate images to use in this Wikipedia article. This person was so generous and gave one of the best pictures I have seen anywhere on Wikipedia.

I wonder if we should contact this expert and ask for the further favor that they might read this article and comment on the extent to which it meets their own quality expectations. Gaff, would you feel comfortable doing this? I support the request being made, if it seems right to ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The photographer was more of a botanist working on the restoration site. We corresponded briefly and he was more interested in seeing what I came up with on this animal, so at this point it seems I am more the expert. And me a simple country doctor... ;) --Gaff (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Right then, looking pretty good. Couple of minor flow issues.....

::They are born toothless, blind and hairless; growing rapidly, the young are weaned at about six weeks of age. - might work better as "Born toothless, blind and hairless, the young grow rapidly before being weaned at about six weeks of age." ::: fixed elegant.

Link genera in body of text (I meant think the word "genera" but no biggie)
Already there, first sentence Taxonomy section: "There are six genera of North American pocket gophers: Cratogeomys, Geomys, Orthogeomys, Pappogeomys, Thomomys, and Zygogeomys."

support Otherwise I think we're there on comprehensiveness and prose. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review and support! --Gaff (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

HMS Nairana (1917)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 & Ian Rose

This vessel was designed as a passenger ship but was commandeered in mid-construction by the Royal Navy for service in World War I as an aircraft carrier. It subsequently saw action during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. After that it reverted to its originally intended role and served for three decades as a Bass Strait ferry in Australia. Its civil career included its fair share of excitement, when it came closer to sinking than at any time during its military service. There was also an amusing incident with a Tasmanian devil, which evoked visions of the classic Looney Tunes character for us. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and should meet all of the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article has been improved further since its ACR, and I've made some small tweaks which I hope are OK. I also have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "Nairana was returned to her former owners in 1921 to be refitted in her original planned configuration" - this is a little bit awkward - "Nairana was returned to her former owners in 1921, and was refitted to her original planned configuration" or similar perhaps?
  • "Nairana was not requisitioned for military service in the Second World War" - given that this is in the lead, perhaps note that she was the only Bass Strait ferry not to be requisitioned
  • "The launch had been delayed nine months, after the British Government ordered that all construction workers be pulled from non-military vessels" - perhaps note why here? (eg, the outbreak of war)
  • "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed, and only limited internal modifications, notably the addition of three large workshops, could be made" - I suspect that this would work better as two sentences (eg, "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed. As a result, only limited internal modifications - notably the addition of three large workshops - could be made")
  • "They were powered" - what the "they" refers to here isn't clear as the previous sentence mentions both the turbines and propellers
  • "A Tasmanian devil being transported to Melbourne Zoo in a wooden crate placed in one of the ship's four horse stalls escaped by chewing a hole through its box, and was never seen again" - do we know when this was?
  • "The ship underwent repairs at Williamstown, Victoria, after running aground in the Tamar River in 1943" - did another ship replace her on the Bass Strait run during this period? Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Nick, tks for stopping by. Don't have time to action tonight but the first four suggestions sound okay to me, the "They were powered" bit I might leave to Sturm, and the last two I'll double-check next time I'm in the Mitchell. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I've incorporated your suggestions, Nick, although I'm honestly not sure that readers need to be told exactly why workers were pulled off civilian construction given that the lede mentions that construction was suspended after the start of WWI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        • It's obvious to you and I, but not necessarily to people who don't know the dates World War I took place between or what this involved for the shipbuilding industry ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi again Nick, no date with (I mean for!) the devil, and nothing about another boat taking over while Nairana was repaired in 1943 but it wasn't for very long so I've clarified that at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ian. I also had a look in Trove for stories about the Tasmanian devil, with no luck (though I did find an entertaining range of stories about other Tasmanian devils breaking free from cages over the years!). I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Damn, sorry, I should've mentioned I also looked in Trove before going to the Mitchell to check the book -- at least the search was entertaining, and tks for the support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support just a few comments.
  • "and floatplanes" unless the wheeled aircraft were deployed from the floatplanes, I think this should be "as well as floatplanes"
  • But doesn't the "mix of" earlier in the sentence negate the need for this?
  • "Northern Dvina River in Russia" the "in Russia" hangs off the back of this sentence unnecessarily. I think it should be deleted.
  • " Kem, Russia. "similarly I see no need for the Russia. The reader was told where she was going, to North Russia, and there are references to her leaving Russia.
  • "after the war to be rebuilt ..." We're 2 1/2 years on from that. Perhaps say after her service in Russia.
Interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Good ideas, and we should have caught the redundant "in Russia" bits earlier. Not that I'm beating myself up about it or anything, but they just seem so obvious in retrospect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tks Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Seattle[edit]

  • File:HMS Nairana (1917).jpg needs a copyright file to explain why it's public domain in the United States as well
    • I don't think that it does given "HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide"; I also note that image licensing was given a clean bill of health by Nikki above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Even without that provision this would be public domain in the US because of its age, but we generally have accepted the HMSO declaration as sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • HMS Nairana was a passenger ferry that was requisitioned by the Royal Navy (RN) as an aircraft carrier/seaplane carrier MOS:SLASH recommends to avoid use of the slash
    • Conway's calls her a seaplane carrier while Layman uses "mixed" carrier. I've adopted the former for the sake of simplicity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Consequently only limited internal modifications, notably the addition of three large workshops what makes this notable?
    • Notable because otherwise a lack of facilities cripples her ability to maintain her aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • designed to produce a total of 6,700 shaft horsepower (5,000 kW) can you abbreviate shaft horsepower to shp here, as you use its abbreviation in "7,003 shp (5,222 kW)" below
    • Nope; no abbreviations on first use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you abbreviate deadweight as (DWT) on first use and proceed to use its abbreviation. You do the same for Royal Navy. Why should this differ? Seattle (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Look again, both are spelled out in full earlier in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, and shaft horsepower isn't abbreviated on first use, like deadweight and Royal Navy are. The article reads: The ship was powered by two sets of Parsons geared steam turbines designed to produce a total of 6,700 shaft horsepower (5,000 kW), each driving one three-bladed propeller. The turbines were powered by steam provided by six Babcock & Wilcox water-tube boilers at a working pressure of 202 psi (1,393 kPa; 14 kgf/cm2). On her sea trials, Nairana made 7,003 shp (5,222 kW) and reached 20.32 knots (37.63 km/h; 23.38 mph). Why don't you abbreviate shaft horsepower "shp" immediately after its first use? Seattle (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Because it doesn't fit inside the template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There the ship was inspected by Rear-Admiral John Green, Rear-Admiral Commanding in the White Sea, the first "Rear-Admiral" seems superfluous. Seattle (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It reads oddly, but that's exactly how it should read. The first use is his rank, the second is part of his job title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): R8R (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a radioactive chemical element. It has been one step away from this process since 2012, when its prose was heavily improved by a GOCE member. It became a GA a long time ago, and now, after recent edits, it's a sure great article. After additions in 2012 and 2015, it is definitely comprehensive (but still not featuring too much), and it should be interesting enough for those familiar with chemistry; however, some effort has been applied to make an article on a technical topic like this one readable even for those who are not. R8R (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the source of the data for the decay chain? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I added one.--R8R (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
@R8R Gtrs: could you please double check the half-lives? There appear to be some half-life discrepancies between those shown in the image and this source (p. 64). The image may need to be amended to match this source, if the original source cannot be located. Sandbh (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It's good that you noticed it. My first idea was to check the NUBASE database, it's a huge source for nuclei stuff here on Wiki, but the link didn't work, and cached versions didn't appear as well. However, I just did some search and I found it; it matches the data we present. I updated the reference and the link therein for both the article and the picture description.--R8R (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Sound choice. I checked each decay path and found a discrepancy for At-217; image shows 32 s; NUBASE shows 0.032 s. There are some other minor discrepancies: Np-237: 2.14e+06 y v 2.144e+06 y; Pa-233: 27 d v 26.967 d; Ra-225: 15 d v 14.9 d; Bi-213 46 m v 45.59 m; Pb-209 3.25 m v 3.253 m; Tl-209 2.2 m v 2.161 m. Since At-217 will need to be amended I presume the other minor discrepancies should be done? NUBASE carefully explains (pp. 9–10) how they have arrived at their half-lives, given differences in the literature. Sandbh (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I assumed those roundings were fine and I indeed missed the fact the astatine and lead half-lives were measured in time units different than those the picture showed. But it would definitely not hurt to match the source more closely. I double-checked it and corrected it; I think it should be fine now.--R8R (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still seeing the old image in the article. In the picture history the corrected version is listed below the old graphic---should be the other way round? In the corrected version I believe Fr should read 4.9 m and Pb 3.253 h.
I see things the way the are supposed to be. It may have to do with that the server does not always immediately react to such changes. In some time, it should fix itself or maybe it already did.--R8R (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
All good now. Was a cache issue at my end. Sandbh (talk) 02:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


  • I cannot support it as long as the infobox contains: "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ AS-tə-teen or AS-tə-tin". I know this is a wider issue but we really do not need the respell renderings as well as IPA. --John (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Since the IPA links to Help:IPA for English#Key, and the mouseover for each segment of the IPA gives its meaning, I think we can safely get rid of the respelling for all elements. (In the case of cobalt it's downright harmful; the second syllable isn't pronounced like the word bolt!) Double sharp (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I must admit, it's not really a question I ever considered. It's at very least a Project Elements-wide thing and I don't usually get into such things. I have given it a deep thought nonetheless.
    For most elements, the pronunciation is simple. Why not abandon it altogether? There are some names pronounced not the way you'd expect them to be pronounced. Dubnium (doob-), darmstadtium (-shtahdt-), etc. But those are relatively new and follow the original pronunciations in Russian and German, correspondingly. There are also those synthetic unun- names (oon-oon-). I bet those need pronunciation keys. But we're talking about astatine now.
    From a perspective of an English learner, it's not really so easy. For example, why is "-tine" in "astatine" pronounced not as "tine," but as either "teen" or "tin"? I took my time to find an answer in the Internet, but I failed to do so. (I don't really consider myself a learner, even though some learning would never make things worse, and could be actually helpful for me, but, as I said, I'd given it a deep thought.) Why, really? To my language experience, which is certainly not perfect (since I'm not a native speaker and don't even currently live in an English-dominant country), but, I believe, extensive enough, it feels right to pronounce the syllable as "tin," but I can't really tell why. This does raise a question whether we should include the pronunciation key.
    You can argue the whole English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a student's book (which is indeed true), and thus it shouldn't teach you how to pronounce things, since it's aimed at native speakers or their equals, as any regular encyclopedia; there's even a Simple English Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think I'd use it. If it helps to resolve possible ambiguity, why not. Won't really hurt us, since pronunciation is a very basic property of a title of any article, doesn't take a significant cut of an article, and might actually resolve some questions (after all, it's not a typical English word, but a very technical one with no related word in common English vocabulary; for comparison, not wanting to transcribe "nuclear fission" is certainly fine). In either case, it's really a part of a wider question that should be decided on elsewhere.--R8R (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    I accept that this needs a wider discussion. My point is that one pronunciation guide may be needed on some elements, many would be fine with none (gold, tin, silver, oxygen) but there are none that need two separate systems side by side like most elements currently have. --John (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
re John (and Double sharp, R8R Gtrs). I have met John in this issue some weeks ago here. That discussion did not evolve beyond step one (opening paragraph + my reply), and so did not conclude in a new consensus. As for this FAC post: I see John puts up two critiques: (1) remove the {{Respell}} pronunciation altogether (from all elements) and (2) IPA is not needed in e.g. tin, in the later reply.
About (2) remove IPA and respell completely from some other element pages (element infoboxes): is not on-topic here, it is not about astatine.
About (1): remove {{Respell}}. The one argument mentioned here: "we do not need respell renderings as well as IPA": This is a wider issue and not astatine specific (which in itself could be a closing conclusion, but alas). In general and in this article, IPA and respell are about the same, but they themselves are not the same, so this is not a redundancy. Then, the presence of {Respell} is based on WP:MOS/Pronunciation, which says in its lede:

For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA.

I can not add much to this. Since adding {Respell} follows MOS, this can not be a FA blocker. As I read it, John asks for a MOS change. I want to keep {Respell} in. -DePiep (talk) 10:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I am fine to continue the general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements, though I tend to agree with your last statement here as well. Just to be utterly clear, my oppose very much still counts for this nomination as long as it has the ugly and redundant material I highlighted above. --John (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify how your concern agrees with the WP:FACR? The pronunciation as written agrees with WP:PRON, so the source of your conflict would appear to be a personal preference only. Praemonitus (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
1a. --John (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Prose means the grammatical structure. I'm not seeing the connection. Since it is an informational table, I'd expect the main concern to be 1c. Is the information presented incorrect? Praemonitus (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Is "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/ AS-tə-teen or AS-tə-tin" your idea of brilliant prose? It looks clunky to me. Hence my oppose. --John (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
John, it's not prose. -DePiep (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It certainly isn't good prose. Neither is is informational. So why is it there? --John (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Given that the information is compliant with the MoS, how would you propose it be reworded? (Keeping in mind that this is a table.) Praemonitus (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I would propose that it would be better to reword this table cell to "Pronunciation /ˈæstətiːn/ or /ˈæstətɪn/". --John (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not prose, so there is not even a possibility to qualify that non-prose. I note that the argument now is full circle. -DePiep (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It appears you do not have a valid concern since all you did is remove information that is allowed under WP:PRON. "For English, the Wikipedia respelling system, using the {{respell}} template, can be used in addition to the IPA." Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Allowed /= optimal. FAC is the realm of the optimal. Having four pronunciation guides on an article is not optimal. I hold that this fails 1a, as I said above. You are welcome to your opinion on whether my concern is or is not valid. I suppose it will be up to the FAC delegate to decide that, not you. --John (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, as you now merely state the obvious and your preference seems entirely personal and resolute, further discussion seems pointless. Yes I'm sure the FAC delegate will make a suitable adjudication of your concern. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I am glad you think it is obvious. I think it is obvious too. My concern is not entirely personal as it is shared by Double sharp and R8R. --John (talk) 19:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Good day. Praemonitus (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
May I respectfully ask @DePiep: and @Praemonitus: are there are any reasons for retaining the second pronunciation guide? Since it isn't mandated by WP:MOS, and in the interests if progressing this nomination, I'm currently inclined to remove the second guide. If this is a broader question that extends across the inclusion of second pronunciation guides for other elements then it would be better to have that discussion in WP:ELEM, and subsequently revisit astatine if needs be, rather than compromise a support. I agree with John that the pronunciation cell plus its accompanying entry cell constitutes prose (i.e. written or spoken language other than poetry). Sandbh (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
First response: "and in the interests if progressing this nomination": as the presence of respelling is explicitly within MOS (link cited above), this is not a FAC treshold.
I don't think the subthread above (last contribution 19:37 by Praemonitus) has lead to an other conclusion (i.e., no changes to follow), unless someone can point to a sound reasoning in there we must have missed. And I don't agree with your opinion that the data row constitutes prose. That was introduced only to wiggle in a WP:FACR argument (after which no substance followed). Since you, Sandbh, note that the label "pronunciation" is part of the prose: that makes it even less likely prose. The whole data row is not spoken as it is written, and it is not intended to be so. It is not a sentence, not even a non-verb one. There is no prose in context either. It is not prose (which is mainly described in opposition to poetry only anyway), it is a list item. (Let me add this pun - skip it if you're not in for fun today: the pronunciation is poetry, its rhyming!). Also, please check your argument against this: why would the respell be bad prose, and the IPA be OK? For the record I want to note that IMO John's contributions in this topic above introduce word play, and in other places about this same topic the tone turned less constructive (1, 2). This about the frame of arguments, my actual reasons to keep it in may follow (but are already present in the discussions). -DePiep (talk) 07:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
re Sandbh's Remove Respelling pronunciation guide "in the interests if progressing this nomination": I think we have established from the MOS that the addition (keeping Respell) is not a contra-indicator for FA. And since IPA is not a Latin alphabet, WP:accessability is a serious reason to add pronunciation respelled. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – overall it looks to be in good shape. I just see a few minor issues: My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • 'cationic salts' and 'radiocolloid' are technical terms that should be linked.
    "cationic salts" could do better with a rewording, which I tried to make. "Radiocolloid" means "radioactive colloid" (quite obvious, isn't it). The word "colloid" was linked before, and it occurred when we were talking about chemistry, for which radioactivity does not matter. In medicine, radioactivity is important (it's why astatine is used in medicine at all), and it is commonly shown by that "radio-" prefix in this context. I'm not really sure if we should link it again to colloid (we could link it to the radiocolloid article if we had one).
    As I only vaguely know what a colloid is, no it wasn't obvious to me. :-) Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "J., T. P. (2010).": For consistency, the 'J.' should be expanded.
    Definitely :) Fixed it.
  • "R., Kalervo (1956)." Is this correct? (Last name first?)
    I just checked, the person is Kalervo Rankama (this is a Finnsh name, surnames follow given names, as in all European names), so the correct version would be "Rankama, K." I corrected it.

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking your time. This is much appreciated.--R8R (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. An unusually comprehensive treatment given the relatively obscure subject matter. I worked on it but the foundations had already been laid by User:R8R Gtrs and User:Allens by the time I came on board. Meets all the FA criteria as far as I can see, including some nice images. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this article. Sandbh (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Per sources I have added "Jr." to author name Aten Jr., A. H. W., but I'm not sure if it should go in |last=Aden Jr.. Three times. Documentation Template:Citation#Authors is not clear to me. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Solved: reread documentation, I understand should be entered as |first=A. H. W., Jr.. Edited. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments, basically nitpicks:

  • From the lead: "Elemental astatine has never been viewed..." and then "may have a dark or lustrous appearance". I think you need a conditional or something for the second sentence. How can you describe the appearance of something that can't physically exist? "would likely have...", maybe.
Thank you, I've adapted your suggestion and changed the second sentence so that it starts, "Astatine is likely to have a dark…" Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • From the compounds section: "addition of silver(I) then precipitates astatine, only partially as silver(I) astatide (AgAt) (or not at all)". Not sure how to interpret the last parenthetical. If some or all of the precipitate isn't silver astatide, any idea what it is?
I've copy edited this to try and make it clearer. If there is no precipitate I gather the astatine remains in solution as At0 or At+. Sandbh (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of red links in the compounds section. Are these articles likely to be created?
I refreshed my red link fu and have removed these as they're unlikely to be created soon, nor as anything better than stubs. 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mendeleev's table isn't clickable.
@DePiep: would you be able make the table clickable please? Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Done by setting |base_link=Periodic_table#Second_version_and_further_development. (Best target for topic of predicted eka's I could think of). -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the uses section: "this is long enough to permit multistep labeling strategies." - This seems to be the only occurrence of the word 'labeling' in the article, so it's not clear what this refers to.
I've now linked this to radioactive tracer. Sandbh (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's an entire paragraph about astatine's advantages in treating the thyroid, but thyroid treatment isn't in the table, and the paragraph never does actually come out and say that astatine is used this way. The 'preferable in diagnosis' claim is cited to a source from 1970. Can you be a bit clearer on this point?
    A good catch. I will think if anything else should be done on this, and will fix it soon.--R8R (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    @R8R Gtrs: I have a proposed fix which I'll post in a few hours shortly. Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    I removed the reference to thyroid treatment as, while it is mentioned in the older literature i.e. Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov (1970) this particular line of research doesn't appear to have gone anywhere in the more recent literature judging by here and e.g. PubMed. Does my edit look OK? Sandbh (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    I believe so. I had a similar edit in mind, because I wasn't able to find any recent reference to that being actually used, but at any moment of time I thought I could be missing something and more search was needed. Now I am quite confident, this issue has been taken care of properly, thank you.--R8R (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For completeness' sake: no objections to the use of the respell template. This seems like a style issue best resolved elsewhere.
  • Overall, great job! This is very readable and thorough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Use and precautions[edit]

Sorry I didn't get back to this in a reasonable amount of time. I just read the newly revised "Uses and precautions" section and its coverage of medical uses. Much improved but I think this section still needs a little bit of refinement.
  • "Results of early experiments indicated that a cancer-selective carrier would need to be developed; this did not occur until the 1970s." Checking the source, this is apparently referring to monoclonal antibodies - hybridomas were developed in the 70s, but humanization didn't happen till the 80s and the first cancer drugs using targeted antibodies started getting approved in the late 90s. I see that there were some animal studies on astatine delivery by antibody and your description follows the source, but from a biology perspective it's a bit oversimplified.
    Yes, monoclonal antibodies are the bodies in question; also, I (and, as far as I can see, Google Books) haven't heard a word of astatinated hybridomas. I specifically mentioned we are talking about mAbs at that moment, and it seemed it was the change that was needed; but if I missed something and something else should be done, please let me know.
  • Sorry, I wasn't clear - hybridomas are cells used to make monoclonal antibodies. I'm sure the proteins must be astatinated after purification, since trying to do it to the cells would probably kill them :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You also wikilink carrier proteins in this paragraph, but that article is about endogenous proteins that facilitate transport of ions, nutrients, other proteins, and so on. I think this discussion would be clearer if you mentioned examples from the sources (antibodies and signaling proteins).
    Okay. One of the sources also mentioned affibodies, I added those, too.
I trimmed and copy edited this section so it now refers just to molecular carriers "such as these". Also mentioned the potential weakness of some carbon- astatine bonds. I may put affibodies and signaling proteins (plus a citation for the latter) back in a little later today. Sandbh (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Last one: last paragraph, "astatine is preferentially concentrated..." - make it clear in this sentence that we're still talking about animal studies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I specified it.
Thank you. I'll have another look at the literature and make some adjustments. Sandbh (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and tried to fix the mentioned issues as close to what was suggested as I could. (It's been quite a while since this section was written, and much was there before the work started, so it took me some research to make sure I'm doing it right, and I still would love you to check if I got it right.)--R8R (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks; made some adjustments as noted above; it should be OK now. Sandbh (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── These modifications look good to me. Done picking at the biology in a chemistry article now! I support this nomination. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Nergaal's comments (arbitrary break for easier editing this long page)[edit]


  • I find the second para to be a bit too long/detailed. I would drop some of the "believed to be" stuff.
    Are we talking about the lead? If so (or even if not), what exactly do you find superfluous? I think we have just enough, we don't go into details, those are very basic things (color, appearance, conductivity in very general, mp in very general), just for the lead.
put "are consistent with it behaving as a halogen (the group of elements including chlorine and fluorine), specifically as a heavier analog of iodine" then change

"It will probably have a higher melting point than iodine, comparable to those of bismuth and polonium. Chemically, astatine can behave as a halogen (the group of elements including chlorine and fluorine), and could be expected to form ionic astatides with alkali or alkaline earth metals; it is known to form covalent compounds with nonmetals, including other halogens. It can also behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry that distinguishes it from the lighter halogens. " to "Astatine is likely to have a dark or lustrous appearance and be either a semiconductor or a metal, and it will probably have a higher melting point than iodine. Chemically, astatine can behave similar to other halogens, as it expected to form ionic astatides with alkali or alkaline earth metals and known to form covalent compounds with nonmetals, including other halogens. However, it can also behave as a metal, with a cationic chemistry that distinguishes it from the lighter halogens." Nergaal (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I gave it a try. As close to what I understood as I could.
Seems fine now.Nergaal (talk)
  • "chlorine is green" it is NOT
    Changed to "yellow-green"
  • "described as being a black solid" => as probably being a
    Fair enough.
  • "half of a given quantity of astatine will vaporize in an hour" this is incredibly vague. the time will be heavily dependent on the sample size and shape. I find this sentence a bit overly-simplified, if not possibly wrong
    Lavrukhina and Pozdnyakov say, "The vaporization from clean glass surfaces can be approximately described by an exponential curve with a half-vaporization period of about 1 hr." I added the qualifier "approximately" to the wiki article text.
Works well now. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • solid astatine => it only talks about At2. anybody mentioned polymeric, ?metallic? At?
    Fixed. Sandbh (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
looks good
  • "complexes" I am not sure this is a real verb
    It is a real verb you can find in a dictionary, but it's a very technical one. Changed it to "forms complexes."
  • "The chemistry of astatine is "clouded b" => maybe move this as a first sentence in the section?
    Good suggestion, done. Sandbh (talk) 07:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pauling scale needs wikilinking
  • "are normally tested" I think this should be in past tense
    I checked Ullmann, they use past tense for a similar statement, so I changed it.
retweaked it Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "astatine hydride instead." instead of what?
    We had "usually referred to as hydrogen astatide" in the previous sentence. It should be clear enough, I think :)
missed it. the text was cloudy before so I missed it but it looks clear now. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • palladium and thallium might need wikilinking
  • "triastatinate]"
  • in the chemical section please mention that "compounds with oxidations states from -1 to +7 have been characterized"
    I gave it a brief mention. Should be good enough, I think, but feel free to comment.
I was thinking the chem prop section but what you added works well too. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The old naming of isotopes is archaic enough that even chemists these days might not understand them. Linking the archaic names the the respective history section of the radioactive elements works well for those needing clarification. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Also, the isotopes have been explained in parentheses by now. Should be good enough.
  • wikilink cyclotron
  • Karlik and Bernert => which of the chains; also which 2 of the other 3 chains?
    Their first suggestion was that astatine-218 occurred and was an alpha emitter (confirmed, uranium series), and it was suggested that so did and were At-216 (not confirmed) and -215 (confirmed, actinium series). And later still, we got the neptunium series. I rewrote it that way, except I left out the unconfirmed isotope part because this seemed to be an unnecessary detail (but it could be argued it is important. It should be fine either way).
  • is "the four natural decay chains" an accepted term? if yes, maybe wikilink?
    Not a real term, just a thing of prose. We also had "astatine was found as a product of naturally occurring decay chains" just before this. I don't think anyone will be confused.
Looks fine now, but perhaps mention something along the lines of "it is not found in the last of the four actinide decay chains, the thorium series". Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see the point for the mass excess for daughter nuclei; also the first columns in the table don't seem to sort well
    Sorting seems to be fine by me; what is the problem? Mass excesses are aimed for those who are not too good with the whole nuclei topic, so they (some of them who can approximate subtraction without writing it down) understand where this would come from, thus better understanding of the article in general (and courage to understand other parts). We're not limited with space, and we don't have an awfully long article here so we have to cut all details we could.
sorting seems fine now but I still think the table is just too much. yes we have space (especially in the isotopes list) but currently the numbers look daunting. Are the numbers in column 3 and 4 saying anything interesting to the reader? If yes, then put them in a graph, but don't put them in the main text of a wikipedia FA. Most people are intimidated by numbers, especially of tables with 5 sig-figs. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I moved the table to isotopes of astatine for now. (Okay, it was there; so just deleted it from the main article.)
  • "alpha hl" => "alpha decay hl"
    Did it in a note. Don't really want to do it in the table because shortened column titles are usually fine and this is explained in a note.
Not sure what you did, but I was referring to the last column header in the table. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I took another look. We have sufficient space. I added the word "decay" there.
  • the meta-stable isotopes discussion should be trimmed and moved at the end of the section
    While moving it down certainly can be argued for (I followed), I don't see the point in trimming. While you and I understand, what this all is about, not everyone does. We don't have a super large article here. It certainly won't kill us to make this more understandable for those who are unfamiliar with the whole nuclei thing.
Seems fine now. Nergaal (talk)
  • "Earth's crust" => Earth's entire crust
    Fair enough for "with the total amount in the Earth's entire crust estimated to be less than one gram at any given time." However, I didn't add the word for "although it is the least abundant of the non-transuranic elements in the Earth's crust," because it would seem redundant here.
The first instance was the vague one. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "-217, -218, and -219" => should the dashes be here?
    Could you quote a rationale on such punctuation? A quick look didn't help me with this. I'll try again a bit later, but if you know it, please, let me know.
Unless there is a grammatical rule that rules, I'd prefer the hyphen to stay. The more complete construct is like "astatine-216, -217 and -218". The hyphen indicates the omission of "astatine" in the listing, from the name pattern. Without prefixed hyphen "217" suggests a stand-alone word (noun), which it is not. Plain "217" is not the way "astatine-217" is written in sources. -DePiep (talk) 08:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Even if it is the correct punctuation, I still find it to look weird (maybe because it involves numbers). For enumerations I would prefer to either say "isotope x through y", or use the "^xAt, ^yAt, etc" notation. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
"Isotope x through y" would make sense. The latter nomenclature might be difficult for those who are not familiar with it (they may be few, but not none). However, Materialscientist did it your way, with dashes. I don't see the need to correct that.--R8R (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I can not claim that the dashes are correct writing, just that I easily recognize the list meant. "x through y" of course could only work in a complete series, which is not always the case in the article. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • move the Np series pic a bit up
    Moved just a bit up.

Nice work! Nergaal (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your words and for your time. I checked issues that seemed to be the easiest to fix. I will think about others on Wednesday or Thursday.--R8R (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks from me too Nergaal, for your insights. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support pending fixing the last of my comments. Nergaal (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I was looking at the table and I do think some table should be present. But I think the highest utility columns would be these ones: Z || H-l || % alpha || % beta || %SF. It would basically cover part of what is now in the infobox but for a longer list and in more detail. Nergaal (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

More missing topics[edit]

  • There is no information on the spectrum, see doi=10.1364/JOSA.54.000965 Absorption Spectrum of Astatine RALPH McLAUGHLIN JOSA, Vol. 54, Issue 8, pp. 965-967 (1964)
Spectrum info has now been added. Sandbh (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There is very little information on the diastatine molecule, eg bond length, bond energy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Predicted bond length and dissociation energy added. Sandbh (talk) 12:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • Prose is still a tad choppy but the subject matter I can see is hard to knead together. I tweaked a bunch of things - yo might want to check I haven't accidentally changed the meanings. Can't see any deal-breakers prose-wise and can't see any omissions.
Thank you for your most welcome edits. They read fine to me. Sandbh (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Semiconductor appears to be mentioned in lead but not in body of text
Thank you; have added mention of this possibility in the Physical characteristics section. Sandbh (talk) 03:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Might just read over again....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment from me as a reader. The infobox now says: "Element category: metalloid, sometimes classified as a nonmetal, may be a metal[1]". Is it just me thinking that "sometimes" and "may be" better be merged in to the same wording, to note the scientific issue? As it is now, it reads like a different 'scale' of dispute/uncertainity. I also note that metalloid-metal-nonmetal makes a complete trend, there are no more options. In other words, it now says like 'it could be anything'. I do like the sentence style, not just a listing. (Caveat: English language and topic are not my specialty). -DePiep (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The listing tries to show that astatine, although classified as a metalloid is sometimes instead classified as nonmetal (due to the instinctive presumption that because astatine is a halogen it must be a nonmetal). We've added that it "may be" a metal based on the 2013 relativistic modelling work by Hermann, Hoffmann, Ashcroft. My impression is that the jury is still out on their work (see the second external link: Astatine: Halogen or Metal?) although Google is showing 7 citations to date, with no dissenters that I can see. Sandbh (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't doubt this sourced mixed status, I thought the wording could be nicer. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I've changed the category to: "metalloid, sometimes classified as a nonmetal, or a metal" and added the 1940 and 2014 citations to the "or a metal" bit. Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
OK for me. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Prosaic Parcly Taxel[edit]

Comparing with the articles on fluorine (which I am notable for) and heavier actinides I am confident that only criteria 1a remains contentious. While I am generally OK with the prose some technical details concern me:

  • The use of in-line atomic masses (astatine-211) over superscripts (211
    , 202m1
    , etc.) – isn't this standard formatting when referring to isotopes?
Our MOS:CHEM says: "Isotopes should be labelled by their mass number, e.g. 14C and 18F.", and here more specific: write the element name. I can read this as not requiring the symbol per se. IUPAC's red book (pdf p.60) says: "... is named oxygen-18 and has the symbol 18O." This leaves open to write the name in prose. (as I prefer btw). -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY Yus Sorry that my brain and fingers are shaky now. Parcly Taxel 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
For comparison, they often write things like "ingots of Fe" in contexts of chemistry or similar ones. It doesn't mean this is the correct way; it just takes less space and (given the context) the reader is supposed to be easily able to understand what is meant. It is basically the same; using the "symbol after a superscripted mass number" notation outside of the equations is a jargon, which is often used because it may seem favorable, given the readers will understand it. But it cannot be seen as the right way to refer to nuclides. Not to mention accessibility: if you know nothing about nuclides and stuff, astatine-211 is, well, some kind of astatine, while 211
is... what is it, actually? I don't know, this article is too difficult, I'll leave it.
Oh, my hands are back online. I think we could add a short note on the first occurrence of the AZ notation in the main text to inform the reader. Parcly Taxel 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
This idea does make sense; I gave it a thought. Currently, we only use this notation in the uses table. I think it's okay to write "211At-containing" instead of "astatine-211-containing" (as long as I remember, we had it that way some time before, but, you know, looks). Anyway, I'm sure that if a reader is puzzled by this notation, he won't read and will just skip the table anyway, because it (especially the compounds) is quite hardcore if you're not familiar with (at least, the basics of) radiochemistry and stuff, and for those who will read it, this notation is understandable anyway. Plus, while it is certainly considered jargon outside of equations (and some chemical isotope-related nomenclature), the nomenclature is very common in atomic physics and radiochemistry; while I do want to make this article fairly accessible, I'm afraid we may end up having to explain a huge number of things to make sure everyone understands them, so this would be some an overkill. That is why I would not do it: it would be practically useless (given the context) and explaining the very basics of nomenclature may be too much.--R8R (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I reconsidered. While I was writing the reply, the idea grew on me, plus we do this with the explanation of the isomer notation. I added a note in the nuclear reactions table; I think it belongs there.--R8R (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some clusters of sentences appear fragmented, especially the synthesis procedures: "The astatine-containing cyclotron target is heated to a temperature of around 650 °C. The astatine volatizes and is condensed in (typically) a cold trap. Higher temperatures of up to around 850 °C may increase the yield, at the risk of bismuth contamination from concurrent volatization." → "For "wet" extraction the cyclotron target is heated to around 650 °C, from which astatine volatizes and condenses in a cold trap or other suitable confinement; temperatures up to 850 °C may be employed for higher yield, albeit risking concurrent bismuth contamination."
    I wrote it this way because short sentences are easier to understand and to follow, you get a period (thus a very short break) every time you are presented a new fact, so you understand everything within these breaks and you don't have to re-read sentences. Long sentences don't allow that, and you don't have that moment to catch up with the text if you didn't get something immediately, and unless you stop yourself (which a period could do) and think for another moment, you'll find out you missed that one and have to re-read the text. Even semicolons are not as good as periods at breaking text and allowing small pauses. (I don't remember if the Soviet book this section heavily relies on uses short or long sentences; could be both. I don't have the book on me at the moment, although I may check later if you wish.) The copyedit conducted in 2012 didn't change it, even though it was incredibly thorough, so I would basically suggest it's not really a problem. But if anyone else agrees short sentences are not desirable, I guess we may change this.
    I'm not for any style on this article unlike what I did to fluorine; however (as I said before) I may beautify some sentence clusters myself soon. Parcly Taxel 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    I am open-minded on prose in general, so if you think you can actually improve it, please, feel free to try.--R8R (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Based on the previous issue the "dry" and "wet" sections appear wobbly and could be folded into their parent section dealing with separation methods.
    I don't really get it; how would the article benefit if we remove the subtitles? The alternative would be to remove them, and start each para with "The dry/wet technique is conducted like this: ..." (or similar), but it would just add more text we could go without and make the navigation within the section slightly more difficult. But again, if someone else agrees we do need more text and less titles, I will not argue.--R8R (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Nah, ignore it. Parcly Taxel 01:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If time and my sleep cycle permit I may correct some of these uncanny facts myself, but tell me what you think anyway. Parcly Taxel 13:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Space Seed[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Miyagawa (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

One of Star Trek: The Original Series most influential episodes, and the origin of Khan Noonien Singh, one of Star Trek‍ '​s most well-known villains. Article has been through a GA and had a copyedit by Laser Brain. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Not familiar to movie articles, but could the "Legacy" section be expanded? It seems rather bare to me compared to the coverage of earlier sections. Gug01 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Miya and I have looked, and I don't believe there's much missing from that section. The episode had a big impact on subsequent Star Trek episodes, but the enduring legacy of the Khan character and to the franchise mostly comes from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support On prose. Easy to read, engaging, just the right number of pictures. Really great article, Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The images... some are not PD/et al, so is this an issue? If it is not, perhaps we could include a shot from the episode as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • All of the images currently in the article are either freely licensed or PD, although a case could be made for a fair-use image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Take a look here. The image is clearly commercially made. The uploader put a no-copyright claim due to a missing copyright notice. Many of the others in the article appear to be similar. Now if the claim is correct, and images before 1989 do require a copyright notice, then practically every image I've ever used falls into that category (yay!). But I don't think it's right. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As the tag indicates, images before 1977 first published in the US required a copyright notice in order to still be copyrighted in the US now. Other countries/circumstances have other requirements, but that's correct for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating! Ok, well I need to go re-label about 100 images... Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments More specific image review:

  • I alwayss have my eyes open for PD Star Trek related photos-maybe now that you mention it, one will turn up ;-) We hope (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • File:Ricardo Montalbán-Fay Spain.jpg - Unless the reverse is also available, we cannot confirm that this is, indeed, PD. Although generally such stills were released without copyright notices, there still were many with such notices. Unless the lack of a notice can be confirmed, this image shouldn't be used.
User:Crisco 1492, I see the photo came from a blog that attributes it to The Greatest Show on Earth (TV series). It aired from 1963-1964 on ABC (US) and the production company was Desilu, who was also the original production company for Star Trek. When I went through original registrations for Star Trek, I found that Desilu had registered nothing but the film Yours, Mine, and Ours from 1966-1969; no registrations but this one in film-nothing in artwork. If this would fix things, I can look through original registrations in film and artwork for 1963 and 1964 for both Desilu and ABC (US). It's doubtful that there are any, but can look. We hope (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if there was no registration, that would be enough confirmation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Bad news-I got as far as original film registrations for 1963-Here's the registration for the program. This is said to have come from The Hanging Man with an airdate in November 1963. We do have at least one PD photo from the program File:Lucille Ball Jack Palance Greatest Show on Earth 1964.JPG, but it has an uncropped front and back with an ABC release. Guess this needs to go for PD. We hope (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed that image from the article. We hope, can I leave it to you to flag this up at Commons? I just realised I don't have a clue how to flag PD issues there! Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • DAB links: John Winston and Juan Ortiz  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't need to list the broadcast date twice in the lead
  • Reworked to remove the second appearance. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • references to it appear in episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise - I'd expect that this is a reference to the background (Eugenics Wars, which was also referenced in DS9 with Bashir, BTW; I recall something about how genetic engineering had been outlawed following the Eugenics wars, when Bashir is first found to be genetically enhanced; also, TAS "The Infinite Vulcan" references the Wars) and not "Space Seed" itself, as the episode is set after Enterprise.
  • I've added references to the DS9 episode - I've split the Legacy section into two subsections, one dealing with Khan specifically and so contains TWOK and Into Darkness related material, and the other dealing specifically with the Eugenics Wars. I still need to add "The Infinite Vulcan" related material. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've now added "The Infinite Vulcan" - admittedly not much, as the source I have which mentions it only has a plot description for that episode of TAS and no background information. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Kirk selects McGivers because she specializes in late 20th-century history and culture. - Feels kinda out of sync with the flow of the paragraph. Might want to rework
  • I've reworked the 20th century mention into the following paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Specialism or specialty? Or field of interest (minus historical, of course)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed it to field of interest - I think that sounds best. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • rest of his supermen - superpeople?
  • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One element introduced in the second draft that remained in the final version was Kirk marooning Khan and his crew on a new planet. - The character wasn't Khan yet
  • You use "writer" a bit too much in the last paragraph of Writing
  • I've removed a couple, and also trimmed a bit of "credit/credited" out as well. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • has never seen "Space Seed" - as of?
  • Added "as of 1993" as that was the date for the source material. Miyagawa (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Contemporary reviews? 70s? The reception section is way too FUTON biased.
  • I've made a request for access, which might turn up something. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That would be nice, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well good news, I'm just waiting for my new account to be upgraded to full access. I took a preliminary search and I've already found The Indiana Gazette calling "Space Seed" "a solid piece of science fiction" on February 16, 1967. So this looks like that issue should get solved in the next couple of days. Miyagawa (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I now have access - in fact it wasn't solid, it was good according to the review. I've managed to add two reviews. There were others, but they were identical to the two I've added word for word, or only gave a plot overview. Miyagawa (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • her review for Trek Nation. - or her review for TrekNation? One's a documentary, one's a website
    • Fixed - is now linked to TrekNation. Also, I thought I should explain why this particular fansite has been included. Currently it is one of only four fan sites to be linked to from the main Star Trek website, but in fact in the past it had much closer ties. From going back to previous versions of the ST website, they used to use TrekNation as one of their main news pages. So much so that when you clicked on "More News" on a couple of previous designs, it actually took you straight to TrekNation. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • with the exception of the DVD containing "Turnabout Intruder". This featured two versions of the original Star Trek pilot, "The Cage". - that second sentence is probably better as a footnote
  • Changed to a footnote as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No mention of the Blish text adaptation? Airing of the remastered version (i.e. non-DVD)?
  • I've added the Blish adaptation under Home Media Release (technically it was the first version of the episode available for home use). Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I did enjoy reading it. (Any thoughts on the broadcast version of the remastered edition? Might be hard to get a secondary source on that) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly. I'll keep looking though. Miyagawa (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Found it! I hit across the idea of checking for zap2it on, but when that didn't pan out, I checked the archived official Star Trek website from 2007 and found both the air dates for the remastered versions but also a description about the station releases. I'd figured that UPN had shown it, but apparently they went straight into syndication with the new versions. Miyagawa (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The whole Chekov thing is not included (don't have to include the joke about Khan remembering Chekov in II because he held up the bathroom, but still... it's been discussed quite a bit)
    • The Pavel Chekov article has some references, though I can't vouch for the quality of all of them. I only mention this because it's been termed "the apparent gaffe notorious throughout Star Trek fandom" (i.e. probably worth a sentence, or at least a footnote). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we found the same source! I've added a couple of lines to the legacy section. Miyagawa (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you checked the Memory Alpha article (link) for referenced information that is both useful and verifiable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Examples of unused possible sources include Star Trek: The Magazine issue 120 ("Space Seed" flashback), The Star Trek Compendium, Star Trek Concordance, and Star Trek Chronology. Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology may possibly have near-contemporary reviews etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The Magazine flashback doesn't have anything usable in terms of contemporary reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Checked the Spaceflight Chronology, doesn't have anything of use other than some non-canon information about the DY-100 ship class. Miyagawa (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Checked the compendium (openlibrary had a borrowable copy) and found a couple of snippets about things being reused later, but otherwise everything else is covered. I was hoping to find something about the Chekov thing in there but it had relatively little to say about TWOK at all. Miyagawa (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Openlibrary also had a copy of the Chronology, so I've used that as a source towards the start of the Eugenics Wars section but otherwise there's nothing extra to add. Miyagawa (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a note: from the 20th to 25th I'll be in Purwokerto and may not have access to the internet. I'll continue reviewing when I return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: great work putting together this article, but I would definitely recommend that the nominator look into archiving the web links that we have here (as I have done, for instance, for Uncle David). Otherwise we may find ourselves in a situation three years down the line where the original link has died, and thus chunks of information will actually have to be removed from this article, and its GA/FA status might be threatened as a result. Better safe than sorry! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Very good point - I will endeavour to archive all the non-paywall web sources. Miyagawa (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • They've all been archived now. I also discovered that there were a pair of duplicated cites - which I've also fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I found no significant issues. The article satisfies the requirements for a featured article and should be promoted. Praemonitus (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of video games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and a month ago tried to send this through FAC. The general response was... crickets, so two weeks later I'm trying again. Hopefully two times is the charm! Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment originally released in Japan as Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana (Japanese: 聖剣伝説DS CHILDREN of MANA Hepburn: Seiken Densetsu DS: Chirudoren obu Mana?, lit. "Legend of the Sacred Sword DS: Children of Mana") is way too long an interruption to the first sentence. The lay person shouldn't have to read two lines of alternatives, translations and transliterations of the title before he finds out that this article is about a video game. You should either trim it or relegate it to a footnote. I wonder if the DS should be introduced as a handheld console?—indopug (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Indopug: That unwieldy template is standard for Japanese video games, even FAs, but I've now moved it to a footnote and I think it does work better that way. I've also added that the DS is a handheld game console. --PresN 19:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; looks to have been maintained fine since the previous FAC and a great article besides. Tezero (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to FAC delegates- Tezero reviewed this at the last FAC, and supported there; this support is just a carry-through of that one. --PresN 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by JDC808[edit]

I've gone through the article and made some copy-edits where I saw necessary. Have just a few points before I'm willing to support:

  • In the Gameplay section, it says "The player controls the unnamed main character, chosen from one of four options." However, in the Setting and characters subsection, it says "The four major characters of Children of Mana are Ferrik, Tamber, Poppen, and Wanderer." Are those not their names?
  • Story subsection, "a mysterious man garbed in black appears and attempts to take the Holy Sword, which is still stuck in the ground, but finds that it is protected by a barrier. The man disappears, and the hero takes the Holy Sword,..." How did the hero get through the barrier? Did the barrier disappear when the man did?
  • "When the Mana Lord is about to kill the hero, a group of gems appear around him to prevent his attack." I was going to copy-edit this, but need some clarification. Do the gems appear around the hero or the Mana Lord?
  • "At the end of the Path, the hero finds the Mana Lord waiting. Upon his defeat, the Mana Lord..." I assume the hero and the Mana Lord battled here, but that's completely left out. --JDC808 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Corrected (removed unnamed)
  • The barrier only appears to block the man when he grabs for the sword; no such barrier appears to block the hero. Reworded.
  • Changed to "the hero"; it shouldn't have been gender-specific anyways
  • Added that they fought.
@JDC808: Responded below your comments, tried to fix all four issues. --PresN 20:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Made a few more copy-edits. All of my issues have been addressed. I Support this article's promotion. --JDC808 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I have found something.

  • In the lead, the coding for the cover art uses of brackets and resolution for the cover art instead of using the image directly doesn't appear to be the current form. I suppose changing it is optional, but it would look both consistent and tidy.
  • I don't think the "Role-playing video games introduced in 2006" and "2006 video games" should be used together.

Those are the only things that jumped out. Sorry it's not any longer, but I seriously can't think of anything else that hasn't been mentioned above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @ProtoDrake: Adjusted both (also got rid of the Nintendo DS category in favor of the Nintendo DS RPG category, by the same logic. --PresN 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One last thing I've noticed: The RPGamer reference is lacking its publisher. The publisher is CraveOnline, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @PresN:, in that case, I think I can now Support this with a clearer mind. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from GamerPro64[edit]

Planning on review this article soon. GamerPro64 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry this took so long to actually review this article. Any who, reading through the article, I think the article is sourced well enough and written throughly on the subject to give it that little bronze star. I can give a Support for this article. GamerPro64 04:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from New Age Retro Hippie[edit]

Placeholder <3 - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Judgesurreal777[edit]

Hey @PresN: and @ProtoDrake:! Been a while, I hope to more active this summer, glad to see you are keeping this project sprinting in a way no others seem to do. Article looks great, well written, covers all the bases, references are archived where appropriate. I Support its candidacy. One small point, and I may not be up to date with our current best practices on this, but shouldn't the plot section have references? Awesome job overall, never stop! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Judgesurreal777, been a while! No, even when you were more active plot sections were implicitly sourced to the game itself; plot citations to game quotes are nice, but optional. I don't have a transcript of the game (I worked out the plot by skimming through lets play videos), so I don't have an easy way of getting game quotes for optional referencing. If you know of one, let me know and I'll add some. --PresN 15:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, @Judgesurreal777, long time no see. Happy memories abound of our previous encounters. Hope to see more of you (well, not see exactly, but you know what I mean). --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @PresN: and @ProtoDrake:, you guys are the best! Good to know about the plot stuff, if I come across a game manual I might offer it or add it myself, but no biggie, looks Featured Article ready. I cannot wait for a Mana series Featured Topic, I always wanted to see it happen :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marie (2014)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marie in 2014 was the among the strongest Eastern Pacific hurricanes on record, attaining Category 5 status on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. A large system, it had substantial effects along the coastlines of Mexico and California despite its center remaining hundreds of miles away. Six people lost their lives due to the storm and damage in California was especially severe. A breakwater off the coast of Long Beach suffered extensive damage amounting to roughly $10 million. Hopefully you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, with the disclaimer that I did a pre-FAC review before CB nominated it to help clean up prose and such. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Marie_Aug_24_2014_1830Z.png: do you have a link to confirm author? Not seeing it in given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The satellite image in question is a modified version, by @Supportstorm:, of one of the Geostationary satellite images (labeled as GEO on the source) for Marie. The particular satellite used in that image is GOES-15 which is operated by NOAA. Original image can be seen here. Hopefully that clears it up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed one blatant double link, but I feel the piped links for the "Category # hurricane" are useful. I don't feel that strongly either way, though, so if they're an issue I'll remove the other extra links. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely the Category 5 one could go to List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Good idea.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Support:Good enough for me.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
As the reviewer for this article's GA nomination, I support--12george1 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments:
In "Meteorological History":
  • "...ranking as the six-strongest in the Pacific east of the..." — I believe it should be "sixth" strongest.
  • Regarding the Most intense Pacific hurricanes table, can there be a note to clarify the difference to a layman between Pacific typhoons and hurricanes? When I see the article for Typhoon Tip, there's a "Most intense Pacific typhoons" table there. Confusing for me.
In "Preparations and impact":
  • " warned residents in Los Angeles and Ventura counties could 'potentially see the largest surf in recent years generated by a hurricane.'" — Aren't citations supposed to come right after a direct quotation?
*"North of Malibu, one home fell into the ocean." — The source just says it was a "structure". Any later sources that say it was a "home"?
  • Corrected it to "structure". I probably misread it and interpreted it to mean house. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
*"The Los Angeles County Fire Department assisted with 115 ocean rescues on August 26." — Source says over 115 were conducted.
  • "Along the breakwater, three areas were completely gouged out by the surf while five other areas were significantly damaged." — The source for this ([12]) lists different major and significant damage numbers.
  • "...850 ft (260 m) saw significant damage, and a further 1,725 ft (526 m) experienced moderate damage." — I don't see that breakdown in the LA Times source. All I see is the total length of significant and moderate damage.
  • The LA Times source (ref #56) is used just for the total length of the breakwater. The breakdown of damage is sourced via the Long Beach Press Telegram (ref #57). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "...damaged a roadway at Sea Launch, within Long Beach." — I don't understand what "Sea Launch" is from the cited source. Is it the Sea Launch Commander? Is it a neighborhood in Long Beach? Is it a corporate center?
  • I believe it's the ship, since the source was giving a general location of where the damage took place. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Army Corps estimated that it could take more than $10 million to repair and replace the damaged breakwaters in Long Beach." — The cited source says $20M for the middle breakwater alone.
  • Corrected to $20 million and changed the wording to reflect that it's only for the major damage to the Middle Breakwater. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Damage at the beach was deemed the worst since September 1997 when Hurricane Linda brought large swells to the region." — I'm unclear about two things with this sentence. First, the source given for Linda only notes five men swept out to sea and rescued. It doesn't list any damage. Marie indirectly resulted in heavy damage and one California fatality. I think this storm ranks farther up in impact than Linda. Second, "damage at the beach" seems to refer to the previous sentence about Pebbly Beach and not the impact on other beaches or along a broader stretch of coastline. The NOAA source doesn't mention Pebbly Beach at all, however. Please clarify for me.
  • I'm just going by what the sources say in regards to the severity of damage. As for the second part, it is indeed for Pebbly Beach specifically. The NOAA source is just to verify that the "September 1997" storm is Linda, nothing more really. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe I've either addressed or replied to all of your comments. Many thanks for the review, Veggies! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeing as all my points have been addressed, I support the promotion of this article. -- Veggies (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a well known (among mushroom enthusiasts) family of fungi which also has considerable ecological importance. I boldly submit this as my first FAC, after expanding it over the last months, with much appreciated help from Sasata, Circeus, and Casliber, and having passed a GA review. The article draws on a wide range of different sources, most of them research articles. This is partly due to the fact that the family's taxonomy has changed a lot over the last years, which is not yet reflected in many standard mycology works and field guides. I'm looking forward to comments and critiques! Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support (mostly) The article meets most, or all, of the criteria, depending on the way you look at it. It is certainly comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and very stable. The prose is very good, but I can't say it is exactly brilliant, as WP:FA? states. It is one of these things were I can't give examples, but is just the minute differences between choice of words and way to phrase that make all the difference between very good and purely brilliant. Gug01 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support This review is for the second set of criteria. The article has a clear and concise lead section, has appropriate structure, and has a consistent format of using footnote citations. Gug01 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Lactarius_rubidus_spores_1000x.JPG: what is meant to be the description on the image page?
This looks like a broken template linking to the original source of the image (Mushroom Observer). I am not familiar with Commons and don't know if this can be repaired. Can anybody help? Otherwise I can replace the spore image with one of slightly lower quality, but with a good description. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed that (just skimming) - the template name was misspelled. GermanJoe (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Uniflora-root.jpg: do we have evidence of the listed permission? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I've asked the user that uploaded the image. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I had received permission via email correspondence with Martin Bidartondo (who I had also fact check the article on mycoheterotrophy when it was initially written). I never went through the formal documentation procedure, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Peter G. Werner. Is this accepted as evidence? The image is surely informative, and I would like to keep it in the article. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Peter, if you still have that correspondence I would suggest forwarding it to OTRS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review The quality of refs is fine: all academic, reputable organizations, or books. However I see an inconsistency with web refs: Ref 28 doesn't have a publisher, most of them have the publisher as part of the title (which I haven't seen before so I don't know if that is or isn't allowed); as for book refs some have locations and some don't. HalfGig talk 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Book references now all have locations, and websites have publishers as separate parameters. Also added some English translatons of foreign titles, where helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'm not a fungus expert, but I've reviewed a few fungus GANs, so will make some comments as a "layreader"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last half of the articles, there are a lot of single sentence paragraph, is it possible to merge some of these? Looks a bit fragmentary/disjointed now.
  • There are three or more "introduction" sentences in the beginning of some sections that end without citations, but they should probably have citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, was offline over the weekend. I'll see how I can integrate your comments this evening – thanks anyway! Tylototriton (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Merged some paragraphs in the "Chemistry" and two other small sections.
However, after reviewing, I do not see where an introductory sentence in a section would need citations. They are merely "wrappers", and the facts they contain are all backed up through citations later on in the respective section. Could you give me an example where you think a citation is necessary? Tylototriton (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, in FAs, it is best to have citations after every paragraph to be safe, including "wrappers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced; I feel citations should be used where necessary and not simply "to be safe". For me, these introductory wrappers act a bit like the lead for the whole article; the sections as a whole have references where appropriate. But I'm not a very experienced editor, if others support your view, I can add references... Tylototriton (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd do it myself. But well, let's see what do others say? You have any view on this, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The name Russulaceae was first validly used in 1907" I'd suggest replace "used" with "named". FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Reformulated this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "does not meet the requirements for valid publication" Why? Couldn't hurt to elaborate in a sentence.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The agaricoid species in Lactarius" Why is agaricoid italicized? It is not a genus name or foreign word.
  • Likewise for: "Laterally stiped (pleurotoid)"
  • There are more such issues in the rest of the article.
Used italics when I introduced a technical term. In that particular section, paragraphs are structured by fruitbody morphology, so I used those keywords as "anchors". IMO this improves readability. I noticed though the use of italics was not consistent in the "Chemistry" section, fixed this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Some characters of the mushroom-forming genera (marked with *) can be less obvious or absent in tropical species" Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the asterisk before the list?
It does. Rearranged the paragraphs. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is the only among the mushroom genera in Russulaceae" The only what?
The only genus. I think this is correct English, but I'm happy to reformulate if it really sounds strange. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the Tropics" Why capitalisation?
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Their basal position suggests this has been the ancestral trophic mode" What basal means here may no be clear to most readers.
Changed "basal" to "early-branching". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "subsequent authors reaffirm nevertheless that "[n]one of the corticioid species in the family shows any sign of mycorrhizal activity." How can the statement of one writer be attributed to "subsequent authors"?
True, fixed this. Somehow thought the paper cited had more than one author. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "few information is available on" Is this proper English?
No. Fixed to "little information". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We could have an etymology under taxonomy. What is the name derived from?
As for all fungus and plant families, the name is derived from the type genus, so any etymology would be better placed in the Russula article (which actually has info on this). Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "popular mushroom-forming fungi" If only some of them are edible, I'd assume the group is not "popular" as a whole? Not the intro doesn't state why they are "popular".
Popular means well known and easily recognisable, even if not eaten. Not sure how I can make this clearer. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Just write well-known then? Popular seems a bit informal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That should be it, Tylototriton. When these issues are addressed, I should be ready for support. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Worked through your suggestions, thanks for the thorough review! Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - All issues adressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good - few queries below:

  • I'd change "has significantly changed ideas about the taxonomy of the family." to something like "has significantly changed ideas about relationships within the family." - and tchange the next "relationships" to "affinities" in the next sentence. makes the segment more accessible to the lay reader without sacrificing meaning.
  • Link genera at first instance in body of text.
  • Can go either way on refs for the wrappers....

Otherwise looks good and worthy of FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Included your suggestions, thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

@Casliber and FunkMonk: How are things looking for you guys now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll look though this today... FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Article essentially meets the FA criteria. There is some link duplication, redundant wording (use of 'also', for example), and a vague 'rather small compound', but nothing that derails the presentation. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Tried to address some of the redundant wording. Tylototriton (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tylototriton: You can install this script to help you spot duplicate links; I removed a few that seemed excessive, the rest I leave to your discretion. Now it's just occurred to me that this might be your first FAC nomination, in which case we usually ask for a reviewer to perform a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if any reviewers still watching the page have done that pls let me know, otherwise I'll post a request at WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Installed the script, but it seems you've found them all? I linked taxa in the phylogeny and the image boxes even if they were already linked somewhere in the text, for more superficial readers... Tylototriton (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Welcome to FAC, I see you've done quite a bit of high-quality writing.
  • "their size ranges from 2–17 mm diameter or less in Russula campinensis to 30 cm (12 in) ...": I fixed the garden path ... most will read that as "from 2 to 17", until they get all the way to the second "to", and realize that's the "to" that goes with the "from". To fix it, I had to simplify, and decided to drop the "2" ... if that's important, you might go with "as low as 2" instead, or rewrite.
  • "clustered in "rosettes",": ambiguous, since both the word "rosettes" and quote marks in general can mean different things. Link it instead of enclosing it in quote marks.
Term is not really necessary. Replaced it with cluster. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but reluctantly, because parts of it read like the contents of a database rather than an encyclopedia article. I think perhaps some pruning would fix the problem, but what to prune is up to the editors of our biology articles, particularly the fungus articles, not me. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for ce; some information got however mixed up in the lead, brought that back in shape. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

St. Elmo (1914 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a lost silent film that may or may not have been the directorial debut of the influential (if now largely ignored) J. Gordon Edwards. At GAC, I opined that I probably wouldn't even bother bringing this to FAC, but have reconsidered that stance. The primary concern left unresolved from the GA process is the deeply anemic plot summary; unlike most modern films, plot summaries for lost films require citations just like everything else (as the film can no longer source itself). Here, I've taken what I could from four different discussions of the plot ... and can still only offer 114 words for what would have been in the ballpark of a two-hour movie. Unfortunately, further plot details (I know there was a "small child" involved at some point, but nothing further there) seem as lost as the film itself. I leave it to the opinions of other editors whether that should be considered a comprehensiveness concern.

As means of disclosure, I am a WikiCup participant and this would be an eligible FA, if promoted. Additionally, I will note upfront that this would be one of the 10 shortest FA articles. I promise my next trip to FAC will be a more robust piece, regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support and comments I'm happy to support as is, just a couple of suggestions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I can see some point to red-linking the two companies once, but not a second time—they won't have changed their status during the course of the article
  • Any idea how this film (or Balboa's films in general) were lost?
  • It has been my understanding that key topics can (and should) be linked from both the lead and the body. In this case, that makes them stand out a bit, because they're currently redlinks, although I don't intend them to be that way for too long (Box Office will go blue via redirect once I fix the mess that is the current structure for Fox pages; Balboa ... I should probably get a stub together for until I have time to do a full write-up). As for how this film was lost, the problem here really is sourcing. The Jura and Bardin history of Balboa is the definitive work, and even they hedge and provide a non-answer to why Balboa's films have such a dismal survival rate. For this one in particular, since Fox (as Box Office) bought the rights to distribution of the film, and continued to distribute it after Fox Films' incorporation, it's almost certain that it was destroyed alongside the actual Fox films in the 1937 vault fire. But Fox has never publicly admitted just what burned (there were legal issues), and no reliable source (well, no any source, actually) that I can find outright makes that observation. So including it would be original research, even though it's probably correct. I can add some generic text about the fate of silent films in general, if that's desirable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm happy with those answers. I thought it was possible that the fate of the film was unknown/unverifiable, just checking that there was nothing omitted. Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. A couple of minor points that don't affect my support:

  • Perhaps mention the name of the unrelated Evans novel in the lead?
  • I found a newspaper advertisement of the era crediting "Dad Leonard" rather than "Pop Leonard"; not sure if that's of interest.
  • Ah, the inconsistencies of 1910s film credits! "Pop" is far more common than "Dad", and I'm inclined to think that too much of this would be out of place in the article for this particular film (he is only the eighth-billed actor, after all). But it's something I'll keep in mind if I ever get around to improving the Gus Leonard article, for certain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I figured it was probably too trivial for this article; just thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Balboa was not a film distributor, so in May 1914 contracted with William Fox's Box Office Attractions Company": missing "they" after "1914"?
  • I'm not sure the previous construction is wrong, but done regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks -- I could be wrong but I think it will read more naturally to most people that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Fox Film Corporation, Box Office's corporate successor, continued to distribute St. Elmo": it took me a second to realize that you used "continued" because Fox continued to distribute the film after they succeeded Box Office. This might read more naturally as "The Fox Film Corporation continued to distribute St. Elmo after they took over/succeeded Box Office in 19xx".
  • Rewrote this. Thoughts on the new construction? I'm open to fiddling around with this more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's definitely an improvement. I think the half after the semicolon is fine; the first half might perhaps be improved if you have the sources to be more specific about the nature of the transition: did Fox purchase Box Office? Merge with it? Take it over after bankruptcy? But it works perfectly well as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an ... interesting question. Ask four sources, get five answers. Koszarski claims that William Fox "reorganized" Box Office into Fox Film. On the other hand, Langman says that Fox was incorporated separately and then "absorbed" its predecessor. Solomon discusses Fox Film's incorporation process in considerable detail, but glosses over how Box Office's fate was handled. Other others provide a variety of vague descriptions of the process, not all of which mean interchangeable things: that Box Office was "replaced" by, "renamed", or "became" Fox. In any case, both were privately held companies owned by the same guy, so the precise details were probably mostly of concern to the corporate lawyers. There certainly wasn't a bankruptcy or an explicit merger of the type that later created 20th Century Fox. I can categorically state that Fox Film was not created through the merger of Box Office and the Greater New York Film Rental Company, despite that being the explanation in many less-reliable sources; that misreading of the timeline apparently first appeared in Wikipedia all the way back in 2001 (although I've recently removed it from the relevant articles). I am ... open to suggestions about a preferred wording here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's quite some variation in the sources. In this article I don't think the reader needs the details if they're going to be complicated, so perhaps your current wording is fine. Alternatively, how about "Box Office Attractions ceased to exist in 1915; Fox Films, also owned by William Fox, inherited Box Office's assets, and continued to..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I went through my sources to see if there was any clearer chronology. No such luck. I've taken another stab at cleaning up this section of text. Hopefully it reads better now? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "was the much earlier": presumably this should be "was much the earlier".
  • The suggested change reads as unnatural to me. Perhaps this is an ENGVAR issue? Regardless, I solved the problem by excising "much" entirely; it wasn't needed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    OK -- my ENGVAR is mostly BrEng, but I've lived in the U.S. for decades, so I can't be sure which side of the Atlantic my ear for a phrase is on at any given time. But not an issue since cutting it works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't give the date of the original novel, which wouldn't hurt, and would actually be helpful to the reader when you say it was much later than Beulah.
  • Was given in the lead (1866) but not in the body, which was an error. Added the date of the St. Elmo novel to the discussion of the film's production. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Oops -- it was indeed in the lead; sorry. Adding it to the production section is helpful too, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


  • "Nevertheless, the 1915 Beulah film was "considered a sequel" to St. Elmo.": See WP:INTEXT.
  • Reworded this to avoid the direct quotation, which wasn't necessary anyway, and added a contemporary source (that I was already using elsewhere, actually) alongside Jura and Bardin. Hope that helps, and thanks for taking a look! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisGualtieri[edit]

Sorry, but there are few issues to deal with.

  • First being the fact that AFI did cite Edwards, but they have sense switched back to Bracken as of this writing.Archived versionCurrent version Secondly, The Complete Index to Literary Sources in Film has been wrong a lot of the time for me. It is actually a compilation of other sources and one of the enduring errors traces back to "Theodore Marston" of whom has been wrongly attributed from Jane Eyre (1910 film) to Rip Van Winkle (1910 film) to The Vicar of Wakefield (1910 film). In this case, American Film-Index 1908-1915 was the source and it was addressed in the 1995 work by Bowers however Gobel's 1999 book (the one and the same) still have the errors. While I like the book... I am just not confident in it based on past experience... but the confusion needs to be cited and included. Though "Who's who in the film world" credits Bracken as well.[13]
  • Additional details from some clippings I got for you. Number of scenes and brief review. Another ad using the 194 scenes. This is certainly from a "canned" advertisement type given its prominence and specific wording... just dig around a bit if you don't believe me. A new film still and account of the film being expensive to show. Another film still with St. Elmo drinking with the Devil. I personally found another still here and there, but the scans were of lower quality and I figure one or two more would be of good use. The low resolution image in the infobox cannot even have the captions be read.
  • The plot is too light... I could not find any official furnished synopsis in the major sources, but I found what seems to be a tailored review in a newspaper and clipped it for you.See here. This should help you expand the plot aspect or even cite the text for the lost film.
  • No interest in covering the release schedule or the persistence of the film? This would mostly be clippings and I know this is probably not as interesting or relevant to readers, but I see it advertised into 1916.

Also, I'll get my butt in gear and do the Vitagraph production and start on the company... just to resolve the red link issue. I wanted to hold off on Vitagraph for awhile...but I finished all of Thanhouser's 1910 releases so I can slack off for a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Let me get some of this material integrated. I'd seen the scene count before, and had wrestled with whether to include it. It's not a metric that gets cited by period reviews for very many films, at least in the major periodicals, and I suspected it was more advertising copy than relevant information. On the other hand, I had not scene that film still of St. Elmo drinking with the Devil, which is amazing. And I hadn't noticed that, while I've been developing this article, AFI totally revamped their entry for the film, including swapping their directorial credit. Let me get the plot summary revamped with the new AFI material and that Trenton Evening Times article, take another stab at the director credit issue, and see where we're at with regard to the other topics. And, perhaps most importantly, thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Happy to help out. Here is the low-res film poster.[14] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've made several changes in light of the additional sources and the major revision to the AFI listing:
  • I've completely reworked the plot summary based on the AFI's new content and the Trenton Evening Times (alongside the best of the sources I'd relied on previously). Naturally, no two of these agree on all the details, but I hope this is a more representative overview of the plot.
  • In light of AFI swapping directorial credit to Bracken, I've rewritten both the lead and the production section to give more weight to the idea that Bracken directed.
  • I've also added a little bit of Balboa's marketing copy. Modern film articles often include coverage of marketing campaigns, and this is probably the equivalent. Plus, since we've got the poster, we've got a reason to use Balboa's "194 glorious scenes". I went ahead and pointed out that the film was still running in 1916, too. That's not actually all that unusual for (successful) films in the state rights era, but it's certainly a contrast to what readers will know of modern film distribution. I opted to cite the Honolulu paper (from January) which actually had prose dedicated to the showing, rather than the latest pure advertisement I could find (from a much smaller market, several months later). There's no way we can declare when the last runs would have been, so I don't feel any real obligation to use a poorer-quality source just to eke out a later pub date.
  • Finally, I've reselected images, grabbing that great one of St. Elmo and the Devil from the San Bernadino County Sun and the film poster (which wasn't originally available when I started putting this together... that's what I get for not checking back, eh?). Sadly, I think the still in The Atlantic Constitution is too grainy and dark to be useful, which is unfortunate, since it's the film poster's scene. On the bright side, at least we've got all the content banned by those wacky Chicago censors!
How are things looking now? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Much better, here's another review for you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That one's already in there (reference #2). I did fix an error with the author's name that had crept into the prose, I suspect from some overly ambitious spell-checking early on. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- @ChrisGualtieri and Squeamish Ossifrage: Been a while since the last exchange here, where are we at now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

My issues were all resolved. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, tks Chris. Squeamish, I think we still need a source review for formatting/reliability so will post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Crisco comments
  • 1866 eponymous novel. - worth redlinking "eponymous novel" to St. Elmo (novel) or Saint Elmo (novel) (whatever the correct title is). If it's been adapted to film five times, it almost certainly passes Wikipedia:Notability (books). Add that to the commercial success, and...
  • It is not entirely clear who directed the film - What does "entirely" add here? Also, would "It is disputed" work better?
  • publically - I believe "publicly" is the more standard spelling
  • Others consider the film the directorial debut of J. Gordon Edwards. - Do they cite any evidence for this?

Otherwise nothing from me on prose. I did rework a sentence; please check my edits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review

  • I can't see a single thing which needs to be fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

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

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

Brianboulton comments[edit]

This looks very interesting – the sort of history we never learn about in English schools. For the moment I have a few minor issues arising in the lead, but I hope I can find time for a fuller reading later:

  • Comma needed after "Holy Roman Emperor" near end of second paragraph
  • Third para: I'm not sure about "ensured" – even draconian measures can be resisited and thwarted. I'd prefer a more neutral word such as "sought" or "encouraged"
  • Final para: De-link Hungary – we don't normally wikilink countries. Also, it's not clear why Bishop Gerard is included in the report of Stephen's canonization.
  • Beyond the lead, there are a couple of uncited statements in the article: see third paragraph of "Early years" section, and first paragraph of "Artistic representation".

I'll return later; meanwhile I hope others will engage with this article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thank you for your review and comments. I started to modify the article taking into account your comments. Please let me know if any further action is needed. I am not an expert in the field of arts and I sought assistance from WikiProject Hungary. If no reference were added within a couple of days, I will delete the non-referenced texts. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Freedom of panorama in Hungary only extends to works displayed outdoors, so File:Szentjobb1.jpg will need to indicate the copyright status of the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your message. Fakirbakir, would you help me again? I am still too simple to understand the above remark. Thank you in advance. Borsoka (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Nikkimaria and Karanacs, I deleted the picture, because I cannot fix the problem. Please let me know if there is a better solution. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
comments by Karanacs. I am very close to support.

First, I just want to say thank you for focusing on this period of time and region. It's wonderful to see the history being filled in here on WP :) Second, I'm normally uncomfortable with the use of primary sources in articles, but I think you did a very careful job of placement.

  • There are citation needed tags in the artistic representation section.
  • citations should be in order at the end of a sentence; for example in the 2nd sentence in the Active foreign policy section, ref 106 comes before 59
  • I think there are too many images in the article. Starting with the active foreign policy section, it's just a continuous stream of pretty down the right side, and it is a little much.

Karanacs (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, thank you for your comments and support. I put the citations in order and deleted some images. I wait some more days before deleting the unreferenced sentences from the last section. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Brianboulton and Karanacs, I'd like to inform you, that I added references and there are no unreferenced sentences in the article any more. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks better. I'm waiting for nikkimaria's image question to be fixed. Karanacs (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Karanacs (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton returns:

First, I must apologise for my long absence from this review, but until recently have not found much time to engage with the article. I have started a closer reading, now, and have noted a number of points which I think require attention or at least considerstion. None of them are major issues.

    • Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You need to establish that the various years introced at the start of the lead are CE
    • I added AD to the first date. Actually, I am not sure that either AD or CE are necessary. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It is necessary to mention AD or CE in the first date, as not all readers will be aware of the period, at least initially. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Hungarian chronicles unanimously report..." → "Hungarian chronicles agree..." – less of a mouthful?
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There's a tendency towards multiple references for quite simple statements where one good ref would do, e.g. "However, Saint Adalbert's nearly contemporaneous Legend, written by Bruno of Querfurt, does not mention this event".[16][17][18] - why is that worth three citations? Or "Koppány, who held the title Duke of Somogy, had for many years administered the regions of Transdanubia south of Lake Balaton."[26][29][33] There are plenty more of these.
  • "...opponents of Christianity represented by Stephen and his predominantly German retinue." It needs to be "of the Christianity
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "even writes of" is too emphatic, non-neutral. You should delete "even"
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword" – the quote needs ascription. It's not clear where it's from.
    • Sorry, I do not understand the above remark. There is a reference to the Illuminated Chronicle in the same sentence. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • The full sentence read: "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword", according to the Illuminated Chronicle placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army." The punctuation was off and the construction awkward. I have revised it to: "Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38] placed the brothers Hont and Pázmány at the head of his own guard and nominated Vecelin to lead the royal army."
  • "He also prescribed that Koppány's former subjects were to pay tithes to this monastery..." What monastery?
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "If the latter report is valid, the dioceses of Veszprém and Győr are the most probable candidates". Conjectural statements such as this must be specifically ascribed.
    • Scholar added. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "When ordering the display of one part of Koppány's quartered corpse..." → "By ordering the display..." etc
    • Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Who do you mean by "the German monarch". If it's Otto, best to say so.
    • Modified. (I opted for an other solution.) Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

That takes me to the end of the "Consolidation" section, so I've a way to go yet, but perhaps you would look at these meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The rest of my review follows
Active foreign policy (c. 1009–1031)
  • I had forgotten that Boleslav was king of Poland. A reminder in the text would be useful. And, unless there are other Boleslavs in the story, I don't think you have to add "the Brave" each time he is mentioned.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a town identified with Ohrid by Györffy" only makes sense after several readings and use of the link. Better phrasing might be: "...Cesaries", which Györffy identifies as the present-day town of Ohrid".
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's legends also wrote of 60 wealthy Pechenegs..." Legends don't write. They may be written. Perhaps "refer to " or "include stories of", or similar.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This section is headed "Active foreign policy", but includes topics unrelated to foreign policy, e.g. minting of coins, settling of pilgrims etc. You should either relocate these bits, or find a more inclusive section title.
    • Thank you. I would prefer the present title without changing the text. I think that the main feature of that period is the active foreign policy. For instance, if somebody works for the XZW Group between 1990 and 2015, we can say that those are his "Working for the XZW Group" even if he had an appendicitis, fathered three sons and four daughters and travelled to Antarctica, if we think that his working for that company was the most featuring detail of his life during those days. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " also dated by many historians to the very end of the 1020s..." I'd say the words "also" and "very" are reundant here.
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "had taken his power from the Greeks" – attribute.
    • Thank you. Included. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • " who adopted an active foreign policy". This doesn't convey much. Do you mean an "aggressive" foreign policy?
    • Thank you. Modified ("offensive foreign policy"). Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "informed on" → "informed of"
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The phrase "in the autumn of 1027" would fit better at theb start of the sentence.
    • Thank you. Phrase moved. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Last years (1031–1038)
  • "Stephen's legends writes..." Mangled prose, and as I said earlier, legends do not "write"
    • Thank you. Modified ("refers to"). Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The statement introducing the chart reads: "The following family tree presents Stephen's ancestors and his relatives who are mentioned in the article". This is not quite the case. For example, Vazul, described as Stephen's cousin, is nowhere to be seen in the tree.
    • Thank you. Vazul added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Andrew I, who died before December 1060 according to the link, refers to "King St. Stephen", yet Stephen was not canonized until 1083 – which is a little odd.
    • Thank you. Reference to the source (a 14th-century chronicle) added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held his dethroned cousin Solomon in captivity at Visegrád." This introduces new material which will baffle readers unless you add a word or two of explanation.
    • Thank you. Info of the imprisonment of Solomon added in a previous sentence. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "confessor king": would a pipe-link to, say, Confessor of the Faith help readers to understand what you mean by "confessor king"?
    • Thank you. WL added. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "An annual procession has celebrated the relic since 1938, except between 1950 and 1987, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government". This doesn't quite read right, since the excluded years represent half of the total period. Suggest rewrite: "An annual procession celebrating the relic was instituted in 1938, and continued until 1950, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government. It was resumed in 1988".
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am distressed to see Zoltán Kodály curtly introduced as "another Hungarian composer". Surely he is a little more distinguished than that?
    • Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal issue: I found the frequent insertions of chunks of quoted material rather distracting. I wasn't sure whether these formed a necessary part of the narrative, or if they were there to illustrate or emphasise points already made. Either way, there were rather a lot of them – are you sure they are all necessary?

    • Thank you. Two quotes deleted. I think we should insert some quote to illustrate points already made. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you have found this review helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Brianboulton, first of all, I must apologize for failing to answer for days, but I did not notice that you had meanwhile completed your review. I highly appreciate your comprehensive and bold review. Please let me know if further actions are needed to improve the article. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
On the "Active foreign policy" heading, I don't think your argument for keeping it, unamended, holds good. For a start, you don't need "active". With or without that, it's a very specific title to use for the period it covers, and the non-foreign aspects within the section are quite substantial – the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs. My preferred option would be to incorporate the three paragaphs into a separate subsection, but at the very least you should amend the title to, perhaps, "Foreign and domestic policies". Ping me when you've resolved this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Brianboulton, thank you for your comments. I inserted two new subtitles. Let me know if further changes are necessary. Borsoka (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
That arrangement looks good to me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: Borsoka has dealt effectively with the issues I have raised in the course of this review. I believe the article now meets the featured article criteria, and hope to see it promoted soon (the nominator's first, I believe). A request for further reviewers would not be amiss. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Brian, do you think you could manage a source review here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
At the moment I am tied up with TFA scheduling issues, a review backlog, and trying to progress my own work, so I can't do this immediately. I'll check back in a few days to see if it still needs doing, but hopefully someone will pick it up before then. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Ian Rose and Brianboulton, do you think I could contribute anyhow to the source review mentioned above? Borsoka (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, it needs to be conducted by a reviewer, and you should then respond to queries/concerns as with any other review. I'll post a request for this at WT:FAC as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "relled": relied?
  • "The opening of Stephen's tomb was followed by the occurrence of healing miracles, which are attributed by historian Kristó to mass psychosis and deception.": Unless the implication is "misattributed", the sentence contradicts itself. "by reports of healing miracles" would fix the self-contradiction, but I don't have a position on how to fix the sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Dank, thank you for your comments and edits. I tried to fix the issues you mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This is an interesting article and a lot of work has gone into it, but it relies extensively on original research. For example there are quotations and citations from Hartvic's hagiographical life and Thietmar's nearly contemporary chronicle. There is an extensive list of primary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, thank you for your remark. However, I think you misunderstand the concept of OR. Sentences based on academic works cannot be qualified as OR. If an academic work refers to a primary source we can (should) use the standard English translation of that source. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, that was my first reaction too. After spending more time on the article, I came to Borsoka's point of view. All of the analysis is from third-party sources; only quotations of the original sources are cited to the primary sources, and I believe that falls within policy. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
This is in many respects a first rate article on an important and neglected subject, but I am still concerned about its use of primary evidence. I am not sure that including quotations cited to original sources falls within Wiki policy. This applies in an article about a work of literature in describing the contents of the work, but extensive quotations from medieval sources which may not be reliable are a different matter. My main concern is that it is not always clear whether the claims of medieval writers are endorsed by modern historians. Three examples of problematical passages are:
"Stephen's official biography, written by Bishop Hartvik and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood,[18] implying that he studied Latin.[2]" Hartvik (or Hartvic, the spelling is inconsistent) wrote a hagiography of Stephen. It is described as a hagiography in the title of the translation and the quotes from it make clear that it was not an impartial account. To describe it as a biography which "narrates" facts is misleading. The first citation is to Hartvik, the second to a historian. If what is being said is that Hartvik claimed that Stephen was instructed in the grammatical arts and x said this implies that he studied Latin, then put in that form it would be valid, but not as stated.
Dudley Miles, thank you for your remarks. Please let me copy here the whole context of the above sentence: "Stephen's official biography, written by Bishop Hartvik and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood, implying that he studied Latin. His two other late 11th-century biographies do not mention any grammatical studies, stating only that he "was brought up by receiving an education appropriate for a little prince". Kristó says that the latter remark only refers to Stephen's physical training, including his participation in hunts and military actions." Gyula Kristó (a Hungarian historian, specialist of the the history of the Hungarian people and Hungary till the 14th century) writes: "According to the evidence of one of the three legends (life history) of Stephen written later on, he studied 'grammatica' (grammar) in his childhood that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language. However, we better take this kind of information with caution. The medieval sovereigns, apart from some really conspicuous exceptions (like for example the Hungarian Kingd Coloman), never attained knowledge of writing and that is something that we have to keep in mind in case of Stephen as well. His other legend does not even mentione his grammatical studies and touches on his youth only lightly by saying that "he was brought up by receiveing an education approproate for a littele prince". This education meant much more a physical training (hunting, participation in military actions) than an intellectual refinement." (Kristó 2002, p. 15.). I think that the article properly summarizes the scholarly POV and the direct quote from Stephen's hagiography is based on the cited scholarly work. Consequently, no OR can be detected. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This misses the point of my comment, which is that describing Hartvik's hagiography as an "official biography" which "narrates" is misleading. Your reply also gives a different slant to what you say in the article. You say there that according to Kristo an appropriate education for a prince is physical training, but also that one of his tutors later founded a monastery, which could suggest that he probably received an academic education. You do not mention in the article the further comments of Kristo which you quote above, implying that it is unlikely that he learnt to read. Also you are still inconsistent on the spelling Hartvik or Hartvic. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, thank you for your comments. (1) Hartvik was changed. (2) Actually, it was not me who wrote of an "official biography". "My" version was the following: "Stephen's Legend written by Hartvik narrates that ...", but it was changed either by a copyeditor or during the GA review [15]. The article (under the subtitle "Holy King") substantiates the use of the expression "official biography/official legend" - I could accept any of the two versions. (3) I assume you refer to Count Deodatus (a nobleman of Italian origin) who founded the Tata Abbey. Why do you think that the reference to him and his monastery "could suggest that he (Stephen/Count Deodatus ??) probably received an academic education"? (4) The article does not state that Stephen could read or write. Why should we state that he could not read and write? Should this negative information be mentioned in connection with all medieval monarchs? (5) Based on a historian's work, the article says that one of his medieval biographies says that Stephen learnt Latin, but two other biographies does not mention this, which (according to Kristó) implies, that he only received a physical training. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
"Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword",[38]" This is cited to the Hungarian Illuminated Chronicle but is it endorsed by historians? This is not clear.
Pál Engel (a Hungarian historian, specialiast of the history of Hungary between 896 and 1526) writes in his cited work: "Among the foreign knights one should mentione the brothers Hont and Pázmány, who were later remembered as having girded Stephen with his sword before the campaing against Koppány..." (Engel 2001, p. 39.). Gyula Kristó, whose work is also referred to, writes: "When Koppány, after having passed around Lake Balaton set out to measure himslef against the prince, Stephen was ceremoniously girded with the sword in Esztergom ..." (Kristó 2002, p. 19.). I do not have the English (cited) version of the third Hungarian historian, György Györffy. In the Hungarian version of his work (Györffy, György (2000). István király és műve. Balassi Kiadó. ISBN 9789635068968.), also mentions that Stephen was girded with a sword and refers to the Hungarian chronicles (one of them being the Illuminated Chronicle) as the source of this piece of information. Consequently, the statement is based on the works of three historians and the Hungarian chronicles (one of them being the Illuminated Chronicle) were their primary sources. I think that the direct quote from the Illuminated Chronicle cannot be described as OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
This is fine, but as I said it is not clear in the article. If you said "According to the Illuminated Chronicle, Stephen "was for the first time girded with his sword", and this is endorsed by the historians x and y.", that would be OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, thank you for your comment, even if I do not understand it. There are three historians' works cited at the end of the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
"[H]aving completed the office of Vespers the third day, everyone expected the favors of divine mercy through the merit of the blessed man; suddenly with Christ visiting his masses, the signs of miracles poured forth from heaven throughout the whole of the holy house." This is a quote from Hartvik. Is it "colour" or a claim that Stephen was responsible for miracles? It is not clear, but as Borsoka insisted in the previous FAC that the 'Holy Dexter" had been miraculously found, I think he is probably saying that Stephen had miraculous powers, and that is POV.
Dudley Miles, as I mentioned during our previous discussion, sainthood itself is a POV. Of course, we can say that saints and their miracles are fairy tales and should be ignored, but in this case we would ignore WP:NPOV. The whole context of the above quote is the following: "Stephen's cult emerged after the long period of anarchy characterizing the rule of his immediate successors. However, there is no evidence that Stephen became an object of veneration before his canonization. For instance, the first member of his family to be named after him, Stephen II, was born in the early 12th century. Stephen's canonization was initiated by Vazul's grandson, King Ladislaus I of Hungary, who had consolidated his authority by capturing and imprisoning his cousin, Solomon. According to Bishop Hartvik, the canonization was "decreed by apostolic letter, by order of the Roman see", suggesting that the ceremony was permitted by Pope Gregory VII. The ceremony started at Stephen's tomb, where on 15 August 1083 masses of believers began three days of fasting and praying. Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held Solomon in captivity at Visegrád. The opening of Stephen's tomb was followed by the occurrence of healing miracles, according to Stephen's legends. Historian Kristó attributes the healings either to mass psychosis or deception.". The context makes it clear that Stephen was not venerated during the four or five decades after his death, and the miracles described in his legends can be the consequences of "mass psychosis or deception". Again, I think that the quote is based on scholarly work (Kristó's cited book). Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you have a fair point here. I did not look closely enough at what you said in the preceding paragraph. However, there are other quotes from primary sources where it is much less clear whether they are endorsed by historians - e.g. the one starting "[Duke Boleslav the Brave's] territory", and "At this same time, dissensions arose between the Pannonian nation and the Bavarians". Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, do you suggest that a reference to a scholarly work should be added? Actually, I do not understand your concern: 95% of the article is based on exclusively scholarly works (including the primary sources their writers cited). Borsoka (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I think it would be FA quality if the extensive citation of original sources were cut out, but not as it stands. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, as I have mentioned, I think that the "extensive" citations are always based on scholarly works. Consequently, they are in line with WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- @Dudley Miles and Borsoka: Looks like it's been a couple of weeks since the last comment here, are we any closer to resolving things? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose, I can only repeat my previous comments. I am sure that no OR can be detected in the article, because all quotes from primary sources are based on scholarly work. I think that neutrality requires that some miracles, attributed to the holy king in his legends, be mentioned in the article, based on reliable sources, but sceptic scholarly views are also mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I asked about this on Dudley's talk page. No reply yet. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) Thx Dudley (above). - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • First, as to the question of original research, I agree with Karanacs. There are a lot of quotations to primary sources, but all of the analysis seems to come from appropriate secondary sources. So I see no problem there.
  • "CEU Press" should be spelled out, as the other publishers are.
  • The "Crying" link is dead.
  • The link with a picture of the 10,000 forint note no longer shows the picture.
  • The only source I have questions about is the one by Csorba. The ISBN doesn't seem to show up in WorldCat, Amazon, or Google. The link is also of no help, as it times out when I try to open it. What kind of source is it. A book? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Coemgenus, thank you for your review. I spelled out "CEU Press", deleted the "Crying" link and changed the link to the picture of the 10,000 forint banknote. I found a reference to Csorba's book in the catalogue of the National Széchényi Library here [16]. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
So it's a book. OK. But is it from an academic press? A popular press? I see that you most used it to reference the section about the Holy Dexter, so my concern is over whether this is a historical work or a religious devotional guide. That is: is it an objective discussion of the hand, or a text in praise of a relic's holiness and significance? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It was published by the Directorate of the Museums of Hajdú-Bihar County and it was written by a historian (no devotional guide is cited in the article). Csorba's work is mostly cited in connection with the places where the Holy Dexter was kept (Ragusa and Székesfehérvár) after it had been taken from the Szentjobb/Holy Dexter Abbey. Borsoka (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, just wanted to make certain. In that case, returning looks fine to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I think the article is featured quality. I can see why Dudley Miles is concerned about primary sources, but I think the article stays on the right side of the line. In a couple of cases I asked for minor changes to be made to address the issue and those changes were made. I have no reservations about the article's use of sources now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I plan to review this and will leave comments here as I go through the article. It might take me a couple of days. Ian Rose, Dudley asked me to comment on the OR issue above on which he is opposing; I'll try to include a comment on that in my review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for starting your review. I also start to modify the article and I will also make some comments on the below points.
  • I gather from a couple of readings of the first paragraph that the Lesser Legend and Greater Legend are two hagiographies of Stephen; this isn't very clear to the reader, since the link to "hagiography" is given as "legends", which is something rather different in English. If that's right, then perhaps a footnote, giving the dates, authorship if known, and some comments about reliability based on modern sources, would help.
I changed the expressions "legends" into "hagiographies" and added the period when they were written. More information on the three hagiographies can be read under the subtitle "Holy King". Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that fixes it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I've just come across one of the sentences that Dudley commented on: the one about Stephen being "fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art". Dudley points out that this is a hagiography; certainly in English mediaeval history hagiographies are so unreliable as to be almost useless by themselves, though they can also contain useful biographical information. Wouldn't it be helpful to the reader to let them know Hartvic's work is hagiographical? To anyone's who's read a little mediaeval history that's a valuable red flag. However, I don't think the subsequent phrase, "implying that he studied Latin", is really supported by the quote you give from Kristo, above. Just based on that, I'd write this as something like: "The official hagiography of Stephen, written by Bishop Hartvic and sanctioned by Pope Innocent III, narrates that he "was fully instructed in the knowledge of the grammatical art" in his childhood. This implies that he studied Latin, though some scepticism is warranted as few kings of this era were able to write. His two other late 11th-century biographies do not mention any grammatical studies, stating only that he "was brought up by receiving an education appropriate for a little prince". If it's clear we're dealing with a hagiography, and if Kristó's doubts are made clear, I think this "narrates" is then OK.
Changed. Sincerely, I do not understand your concerns, because Kristó explicitly writes that "According to the evidence of one of the three legends (life history) of Stephen written later on, he studied 'grammatica' (grammar) in his childhood that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language" (Kristó 2002, p. 15.). For me, this is not an important issue, so I accepted your suggestion. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
What you've done works for me, but let me add a comment for clarification. By "that can refer exclusively to his learning of the Latin language" I think you mean "this can't refer to anything but learning Latin" -- in other words, Kristó is saying it's unambiguous. He doesn't say it's definitely true, though; in fact he follows up by saying that we must be cautious. The key change to me is making it clear in the article that the sources are not regarded as reliable on this point by a modern historian; the article previously did not make that clear. I think that addresses what Dudley was commenting on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Györffy also writes, without referring to his source, that": I think this would be natural as "Györffy also writes, without identifying his source, that". However, I'm not clear why the reader needs to know that Györffy doesn't specify a source here. If we think Györffy is reliable then the reader can go to the source if they want to follow up; and since other historians are cited as agreeing with Györffy I think the remark can be cut.
Thank you; changed. The existence of "ducates" in Hungary in the 10th century is Györffy's conception, who based his theory on toponyms and similar indirect evidence. Györffy's POV was not universally accepted (for instance, Kristó debates it), but there are other historians who accept it. Györffy was a historian, his work was published by an academic institution; therefore, he is a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Why is "Nyitra ducate" given in quotes?
"Ducate" is a term that Györffy applied when he wrote of the (assumed) ducates/duchies in 10th-century Hungary, and he wrote of the "Nitra ducate" in connection with Stephen. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I think a footnote would be helpful to clarify this and the previous point; this is slightly off the main topic of the article, so it doesn't need to go in the main text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Upon his father's initiative": suggest "At his father's suggestion" or "instigation", or perhaps "Geza arranged Stephen's marriage, to Gisela ...".
Changed. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen convoked an assembly to Esztergom": "at Esztergom" would be the more common usage.
Changed. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "the most senior member of the Árpád dynasty, who was Koppány at that time": should be "which was Koppány".
Changed. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Stephen, who according to the Illuminated Chronicle "was for the first time girded with his sword" ': Dudley commented on this; I think it's OK. I've written similar things in my own articles, referring to the sources such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or regnal lists or charters. When I've had to refer to sources which have drawn sceptical commentary from historians I make sure the reader is aware of it, but the discussion above makes it clear that scholars take this remark at face value. Dudley, aren't the mentions of William of Malmesbury in Æthelstan analogous?
  • "a manuscript containing interpolations": why are the interpolations relevant?
The charter is a contemporaneous source (dated to 1002), but it was later modified many times, so its reliability can be suspect. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen demonstrated his claim to reign all lands dominated by Hungarian lords": "asserted" might be better than "demonstrated".
Changed. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "to confirm his international position": what does "international position" mean? I can guess what's intended but I don't think it's a clear phrase.
I changed the expressen: "He also decided to strengthen his international status by adopting the title of king." Please let me know if further modification is needed. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen always demonstrated his sovereignty": "demonstrated" is not the right word; "asserted" is the best choice I can think of.
Changed. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Gyula later escaped from captivity and fled to Boleslav the Brave, Duke of Poland (r. 992–1025)": can you confirm that the footnote at the end of this sentence, citing Kristó, makes reference to the passage following from Thietmar of Merseburg?
Yes, Kristó writes: "The above-mentioned reliable work of the bishop of Merseburg left that note to us that Gyula, after having been freed or having escaped from his captivity, fled to the Polish prince, Boleslaw the Valiant; Stephen, at that, generously sent his wife after him. The German author did not forget to draw attention particularly to the humanity of Stephen rare in those medieval times." Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I see this was a point Dudley raised; I think if Kristó supports the primary source, as he does, and you cite Kristó, as you do, this is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The mention of disagreements between Slovak and Hungarian historians makes me wonder if there are comments you could add for the reader's benefit about partisan historiography.
Sorry, I do not clearly understand your above remark about "partisan historiography". Actually, I would like to avoid making any comments on either Hungarian or Slovak historians in connection with Stephen I. Borsoka (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant that if it there are nationalist biases in modern historical writing about this period, the reader should know. For example, in Principality of Nitra the lead comments that "most Slovak historians believe" one version of events, but "other historians" are less certain. If something similar is true in historical works about Stephen, the reader should know that so they can assess the different historians' accounts in that light. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Mike Christie, thank you again for your comments. I think Stephen's life is not subject to scholarly debates because of the nationality of the historians. The history of the alleged Principality / Duchy of Nitra is a separate issue, which is only slightly connected to Stephen's life. Borsoka (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "while Thoroczkay to the southern parts of Transdanubia": this appears to be missing a word or two; perhaps it should be "while according to Thoroczkay they are the southern parts of Transdanubia". The sort of parallel construction you appear to be using isn't easy to make fluent in English.
Thank you for yor comments. I changed the phrase. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You have both "Kabars" and "Kavars" in one paragraph; as far as I can tell both are used, but I would suggest being consistent.
Modified (I preferred "Kabars"). Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Anonymous" links to "Anonymus (chronicler)"; shouldn't the text of the link also be "Anonymus"?
Modified. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Later in the same years": do you mean in 1018? If so it should be "year"; if you're referring to more than one year it's not clear what is meant.
Modified (yes, 1018 is the correct date). Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen collected relics of a number of saints in "Cesaries"": what does "Cesaries" mean?
I added the "during his campaign in the Balkans" text, because the last sentences in the previous chapter refer to Cesaries. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the quote from Rodulfus Glaber commented on by the historians you're referring to? If so, can you add a citation? This is a case where I think it's OK to use a primary source so long as a secondary source does so too, or generally indicates that the source is reliable. The same applies to the long quote from Wipo further on in the article; I think you need a citation showing that Wipo is treated as reliable by historians, and preferably showing that this particular passage is thought to be actual. As I'm sure you're aware, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has multiple versions, some of which directly contradict each other on particular events; citing the ASC has to be done with care, and with a secondary source as backup. I don't know anything about Wipo's reliability but as it's a primary source I think a backup citation is needed.
I do not have the English (cited) version of György Györffy's book. In the Hungarian version of the same work (Györffy, György (2000). István király és műve. Balassi Kiadó. ISBN 9789635068968.), Györffy verbatim cites, on pages 294 and 295, the same text from Rodolfus Glaber's chronicle. Györffy also cites Wipo's reference to "dissensions" that "arose between the Pannonian nation and the Bavarians, through the fault of the Bavarians"; Györffy explicitly says that Wipo "was stick to impartiality" (Györffy (2000), page 311). Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's conflict with Ajtony, a chieftain in the region of the river Maros—which is described in the Long Life of Saint Gerard": I suspect this needs rephrasing; as you have it it implies that the Long Life describes the river, but I would guess it actually describes the conflict with Ajtony.
Modified. I hope that the new version is clearer. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "it is duly attributed to Stephen": do you mean that the usual attribution is to Stephen, and that Györffy believes this attribution is correct? If so I would suggest "it is correctly attributed to Stephen".
Modified. I think, the new text is clearer. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A general point, which I've been noticing as I read through: you use "according to <historian>" five or ten times throughout the article. Some of these are necessary because you are contrasting the views of different historians, but in some cases, such as "According to Kristó, the legends refer to a plot in which Vazul participated and his mutilation was a punishment for this act", it doesn't seem necessary to name the historian in the text. Can any of these be cut?
    • "According to Kristó, the legends refer to a plot in which Vazul participated and his mutilation was a punishment for this act" - I think it is a scholarly POV, because the legend does not name the conspirators, and as far as I can remember there are historians who do not identify them with Vazul and his partisans. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • "According to historian Gábor Thoroczkay, Stephen also established the Diocese of Kalocsa in 1001." - this is also a POV, because the date of the establishment of the Kalocsa see is unknown. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • "According to Györffy, Emeric's wife was a kinswoman of the Byzantine Emperor Basil II." - this is a POV, nobody knows who was Emeric's wife. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I modified the sentence about Stephen's son, Otto, deleting the reference to Kristó. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A "Cuman" lady is mentioned in the family tree, but not elsewhere; suggest linking to "Cumans", or if this is thought to be an anachronism, either linking to the "Early life" section of Géza's article, or giving a footnote to explain the term.
A wl added.Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Stephen was the first triumphant miles Christi ("Christ's soldier") among the canonized monarchs': I'm not familiar with the term miles Christi; is there a link possible from it?
A wl added.Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Overall I think the article is in excellent shape. After these points are dealt with I'll do a copyedit pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've supported the article above. This is very good work; I hope we see more of your articles at FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Coord note II -- Thank you all for your comments. It's always gratifying to see serious concerns discussed in a collegial manner, as has been the case here. Of course one would prefer to see questions of sourcing largely resolved before an article gets to FAC, but it doesn't always happen that way. I am leaning towards promotion here, not because the supporting comments outnumber the objections, but because the objections have been addressed not only by the nominator but also by some of the reviewers. That said, I'd like to clarify if, among all the source discussion, someone is prepared to sign off as having spotchecked some of the references for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, given this would be the nominator's first FA? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian, I have not spotchecked the sources. I might be able to get to some later this weekend but if you could put up a spotcheck request that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.


Notified: Saravask, WP Plants, WP Food and Drink, WP Herbs and Spices, WP Agriculture, WP Iran

This is a 2006 promotion with numerous issues noted on talk over a long period of time. These include biomedical claims that need MEDRS-compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

PMID 25072266 could be addressed for comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PMID 23538079 needs to be examined for MEDRS. Adverse effects per PMID 23472485 should be discussed. PMID 22432635 and PMID 23971874 are not used.

There are numerous harv ref errors, so it's unclear which sources are being used without checking one by one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dixie (song)[edit]

Notified: Main editors retired, WP American music, WP MT, WP Songs
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has taken on some uncited text, unaddressed since talk notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1928 Okeechobee hurricane[edit]

Notified: Jdorje, WP Puerto Rico, WP Caribbean, WP Tropical cyclones
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion with some deficiencies noted on talk last month; they should be easy to deal with, but haven't been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't taken much time to review the article (it almost certainly does need to be brought back up to speed), but from the aforementioned talk page thread:

I'm confused by the very first sentence of the lead which states it "was the second deadliest tropical cyclone in the history of the United States, behind only the 1900 Galveston hurricane" because, later in the article, the (unsourced and possibly outdated) table titled 'Deadliest Atlantic hurricanes' lists Mitch as having surpassed both.

The US isn't the only nation bordering the Atlantic Ocean. Not sure how those two stats could be contradictory in any way. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Chrisieboy, David Underdown, Nortonius, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject East Anglia, WikiProject England

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been regularly updated in the past few years, which means it no longer meets the FA criteria that it did back in 2007, when it was promoted. As noted on the article talk page, demographic statistics in the article were vandalised and not reverted until I spotted this more than a year later, which indicated to me that editors haven't been keeping a close enough watch on the article to ensure the FA standard is maintained (and there may well be other vandalism that has crept in). There are now quite a lot of unsourced or dated claims in the article, and as a result it no longer qualifies as comprehensive or well-researched. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at FAR ... eight days between talk page notice and FAR listing is cutting it close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, SandyGeorgia, I didn't see that there was a guideline of two to three weeks for each stage. I'm happy for this to be put on hold, although I also note that not a single editor has posted a response in those eight days (which has reinforced my sense that no one has been actively editing or monitoring the article of late). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether to put it on hold is a decision the @WP:FAR coordinators: will make, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, this first part of FAR is preliminary to the FARC proper below, so I don't think we need to stick strictly to pre-preliminary discussion on the talk page. I will ping some other near-locals (Hey @Dweller: and @The Rambling Man:!) as this is their neck of the woods (geographically). A brief perusal show uncited sentences and some prose that could be tightened, so let's leave it here and get more eyes now. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Directed here from WT:UKGEO, I was ready to make some points about the article, but the above comments aren't encouraging. Should editors post here, at the article talk page, or in "FARC proper below" (which doesn't seem to exist yet)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, PaleCloudedWhite, and thanks for coming here to participate. The three steps (talk page, featured article review (FAR) and featured article removal candidate (FARC)) are explained at WP:FAR. At this stage, we're supposed to identify problems with the article and discuss how to improve it. In a few weeks, we'll move on to the FARC stage where people will vote to either keep or remove the FA status. So you don't need to wait until the FARC stage to comment - the only issue as far as I know is that I started the FAR a bit early. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite just put comments here, where we can see, judge and improve.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. Well, the most immediate impression is that the article structure doesn't follow the guideline at WP:UKTOWNS. I don't know if that has any bearing on FA status, though even if it doesn't, it still seems odd that the geography section is at the bottom of the page, and makes no mention of geology but does cover linguistics. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Chrisieboy has now started to address some of the problems with the article and I will try to help out. Given this, and that I was a bit trigger-happy with moving this to FAR, I hope we can agree to give it a fair bit of time for improvements to be made before moving to the FARC stage. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[edit]

Notified: Halibutt, WP Correction and Detention Facilities, WP MilHist, WP Austria, WP Germany, WP Poland
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for pinging me, I would respond at the talk page if someone notified me of it. Sure, the article did not see any substantial changes in recent years (ever since I wrote most of it), but I believe most of the issues you raise above are easily fixable, there's nothing wrong with the article itself I believe.
As to specific issues, I took the liberty to reply at the article's talk page. In short, out of roughly 10 issues you raised, most are either non-issues (at least I can't see link farms in the see also section, can't see hidden text, can't see any problems with the sections and so on) or were already fixed (en dashes, some 8 in-line citations still using <ref> instead of {{sfn}} and so on). And in the case of the rest you would have to raise specific concerns for me to be able to fix the article - or the matter is up to debate (as in the case of lists you say should be prosified, whereas they were converted from prose to lists specifically per WP:EMBED).
All in all - I'd be happy to fix the article, but would need some help from you in pointing me to what there is to be fixed. Please be specific. //Halibutt 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Responding and addressing issues on talk is good -- thanks!! -- no need to clutter the FAR with back and forth on ongoing improvements. I am off for the day, but will get back to you this pm on article talk with more specifics (I disagree that there is not significant work to be done, but am confident it can be done, and will give you more detail on article talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Preliminary feedback on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment not relevant to WP:WIAFA moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: because the original nominator seems concerned that I may be expressing personal preference, additional commentary from someone other than MOI on issues or deficiencies in this article might be helpful. There is a lengthy section on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look sometime in the next 48 hours. Just popped on for a tic - this will need some reading and digesting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
In January 1945, the camps, directed from the central office in Mauthausen, contained roughly 85,000 inmates. - what does "directed from the central office" mean in this sentence?
since Germany started the war against Poland in September 1939 - since = "after" or since = "because of"?
Prisoners were also "rented out" as slave labour, - don't need quotes here I think
last para of Liberation and post-war heritage needs inline references
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs) 01:48, April 21, 2015‎

Geology of the Capitol Reef area[edit]

Notified: Mav, WP Earthquakes, WP Utah, WP Geology
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAR for History of the Grand Canyon area came at a bad time. But I should have some free time for this one after this weekend. BTW - I don't check my watch list anymore so the most effective way to get my attention is to leave a message on my talk page. --mav (reviews needed) 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
ah, ha ... so we can credit URFA for dragging you back in here !! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Something like that. :) --mav (reviews needed) 02:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the current citations have this wording added to them already: "For the whole paragraph, except where noted". So it should not be a problem adding more cites as needed once I get all the books in front of me to confirm. --mav (reviews needed) 02:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
mav, please keep the page posted on your timing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Australia[edit]

Notified: WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP Australian noticeboard, original nominator and most active editors long gone
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, some edits, but little improvements in issues of uncited text and MOS breaches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

South Australian state election, 2006[edit]

Notified: Timeshift9, WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Elections and Referendums, WikiProject Australian politics, WikiProject South Australia

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because: 1. There's a lot uncited sentences; 2. The lead is too short, doesn't covered even half of the article. Promoted December 14, 2006, talk page notice March 2. Nominator still very active, notefied.Jarodalien (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I think this is definitely evidence of how standards have changed over time. I think it basically meets GA status (or if not, at least could with a small amount of work), but falls well short of modern FA standards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section concerned referencing and lead issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Rockpocket, WP Cephalopods, WP Animal anatomy, WP Molecular and Cellular Biology
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. There are problems beyond the lack of citations, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I wrote the original content back in 2006. I don't think it is too far away from FA, but sadly agree that it does not meet current standards and its narrative flow has suffered from piecemeal development over the years. I unfortunately do not have the time to maintain this myself these days, but would be very willing to assist as much as I could if anyone wishes to take it on. Rockpocket 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section largely concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sunday Times Golden Globe Race[edit]

Notified: Johantheghost, WP Water sports, WP Sailing

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest featured article promotions and has not been reviewed since 2006. Since promotion, it has been tagged for citation and weasel words. . DrKiernan (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC – Without even looking that closely at the article, the numerous cite tags by themselves show that it does not meet the FA criteria. Unfortunately, I don't have access to any of the book sources used in the article, which would probably be necessary to attempt a save, or I'd try working on it myself. Sadly, without work this will eventually need to be delisted. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section largely centred on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tagged for citation and weasel words for a year. DrKiernan (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist – All of the tagged issues from earlier are still present and appear likely to remain so. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Jay Chou[edit]

Notified: SeleneFN, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pop music

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel like it no longer meets FA criteria. There are whole sections and paragraphs that are completely unsourced, and random sentences that aren't sourced. And the sources that are there do not seem reliable to me. Not something I would consider a FA. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Delist. I'm utterly confused as to why until now it wasn't nominated to be delisted. I support your nomination to delist this article, it would need months of work at least to bring it back to FA standard. I can only think of looking in google books to find any of this unsourced information, but that's about it. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Burklemore1, please review the instructions at WP:FAR. The article is nominated for review; Keep or Delist are declared when/if it moves to the FARC section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia: Oops, I misread. Thanks for the letting me know. :-) Burklemore1 (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist article. Clean-up banners automatically qualify for delisting. Besides, some of the references are not reliable. CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • CookieMonster755, please read the FAR instructions and the comments on this page just above yours. Your declaration won't be considered at this stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section largely centred on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Currently in multiple clean up categories: articles lacking reliable references, articles needing additional references, articles with dead external links from September 2010, articles with unsourced statements from January and April 2015, and BLP articles lacking sources. DrKiernan (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, no one working on improving deficiences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kid A[edit]

Notified: WikiProjects Albums and Alternative music

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in nine clean up categories: Articles needing additional references (January 2015), Pages with citations having bare URLs, Pages with citations lacking titles, Articles lacking reliable references (January 2015), Articles with unsourced statements (January 2015), Articles that may contain original research (October 2014), Wikipedia articles needing factual verification (October 2014, January 2015), Articles with failed verification (January 2015). DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments Having worked on the article for a couple of days now, I've realised that its problems run very deep.

  • Even apart from the stuff that's been tagged (as mentioned above), a lot of stuff is sourced to blogs, fansites, university term-papers, and obscure, niche publications. Given that this album has received Sgt Pepper-level adulation from all manner of mainstream sources, this is unacceptable.
  • The article is also incomplete; the Legacy section needs to be expanded to incorporate said adulation.
  • The Recording and Music sections suffer from a lot of overlap and repetition.
  • The Reception section doesn't really represent the breadth of opinions that accompanied the album's release.
  • The prose is often choppy; a clear narrative doesn't shine through, making reading tiresome.

Keeping this at FA standard will require more of a rewrite-from-the-ground-up effort than merely finding some missing sources. OK Computer Featured article should be a good model.—indopug (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Popcornduff did an excellent job rewriting the Release section and seems to have more work lined up. I myself want to concentrate on The Communist Manifesto till 14 April (when the WP:Core Contest ends), but will try to chip in with copyedits etc after that.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still working on this. It would be super useful if someone (not me as I find it super tedious) could update the professional ratings box with some better sources. We can have a maximum of 10 (there's only 8 at the moment) and maybe get some more interesting publications in there. Perhaps some negative reviews would be good too, for demonstrating how divisive it was on release? Then we have a separate reviews box for the collector's edition rerelease, like the OK Computer and Hail to the Thief articles do, showing a wall of 5/5s. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please try to address the unreliable sources that are still tagged in the article. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, duh. Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, stalled ... besides tags and sourcing issues, pls address spaced WP:EMDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
For everyone's information, it's still my plan to dramatically rewrite this article (you can see my work in progress on my sandbox), but it's not going to happen soon. So yep, do what you gotta do. IMO this article hasn't been worthy of FA for years or maybe ever. Popcornduff (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC and hope for future progress. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness, prose, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Though improved, problems remain; as shown by the remaining tags: lacking reliable references from January 2015, needing additional references from January 2015, bare URLs, citations lacking titles, and needing factual verification from January 2015. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, insufficient progress on deficiencies noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rabindranath Tagore[edit]

Notified: Saravask, WP Religion, WP West Bengal, WP Brahmoism, WP Philosophy, WP Poetry, WP Bangladesh
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been kept at standard; see the talk page note from Jan 2015. There is uncited text (some without attribution and amounting to hagiography) and a MOS tune-up is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, two weeks, a couple of edits, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements; weasel-words; harv errors. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway[edit]

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard
URFA nom
Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
  • Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
  • Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
    • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
    • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
      • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
  • Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
    • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
  • Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
    • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • instead of:
    • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
    • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
  • There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
    • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
  • On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
  • Sentences should not start with numbers.
  • Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
    • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
  • These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
    • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
  • Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
    • And ???

In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Review response

Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.

  • I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
  • Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
  • I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
  • I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
  • Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
  • No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.

Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils[edit]

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

Review commentary[edit]

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

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

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

See instructions at WP:FAR; you only raised the concerns on article talk two days ago.[17] Is there an earlier FAR notice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like some of the other listings at FAR/FARC didn't even get a talk page notice, so I wasn't sure how strictly that part is being followed. Forgive me if I jumped the gun. Gloss 02:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any other FAR that did not have a talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The one you nominated (Gas metal arc welding), doesn't look like it had any concerns raised on the talk page since 2011 before you nominated it for FAR. So I was going to jump right to the FAR since this article did have concerns raised about it being an FA with this thread also in 2011: Talk:New Jersey Devils#Recentism, but I added another notice a few days ago since I didn't know how recent the notice had to be. Gloss 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gloss, older notifications are okay - the idea of the talk-page step is to see whether there are people willing to step in and help get the article up to standards without a full review. But the section you point to is not so much concerns about it being FA so much as a suggestion that a new article could be created from this one and brought to FA status. I think we'll put this on hold for a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem at all. Again, my apologies. Gloss 01:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Gloss did let us know at WP:HOCKEY, so there is that. I won't make any promises about fixing it up, but I will try to give the article a read over today or tomorrow to see how much work is required and whether I want to bring it back to FA level at this time. Resolute 15:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. I've just copyedited the lead and the Kansas City/Denver sections, and no, I don't believe the FA status can be saved without a tremendous amount of work. I could copyedit the entire thing, but massive amounts of the article are completely unsourced and I really don't have the inclination to do the kind of research necessary on this article. I would happily support someone else if they were to take that work on, however. This article truly is a relic of another era in Wikipedia's history. Resolute 23:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • From a glance, I'm quite concerned about the amount of unsourced content. In fact, when an article contains multiple completely unsourced sections/subsections, that alone is an automatic fail for GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, but you all are commenting on a FAR page that is not at FAR, because it's on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It won't be on hold forever and I find it unlikely much changes between now and then. If it does change, my only comment has been to note the amount of work required. SNUGGUMS' comment is similar. Resolute 15:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't disagree with the basis of the FAR and thought the article was in a shoddy state when I first learned there was going to be an FAR. I've begun to work on improving it and have finished a couple of the history sections. My schedule here and elsewhere is full, but I'm going to try devoting more time to polishing up the rest of the article in the hopes of being able to pull off an improbable save. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Confident in your ability to restore-- please ping when we should have a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review. I have nominated File:KovalchuckMapleLeafs.png for deletion. The others seem OK. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Just to give everyone an update, I've just about finished citing the history sections and am going to start working on the other sections. Progress has been slower than I had wanted, but it's getting there. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Giants2008, we are approaching two months now ... how is it going? Should we move this to FARC just to keep the process on track? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If you all think it needs to be moved to the next stage, don't let me stop you. There are still a few areas that I want to add cites to anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Primary concerns raised during the review include verifiability, comprehensiveness, and length (wrt summary style). Maralia (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The citation situation is looking much better. Giants2008, could you give us an overall update? Thank you for all the work you're putting in here. Maralia (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've been too busy recently to do much to the article, but I think it's almost there. There's still one paragraph that I know of that ends without a cite, so that still needs to be fixed. Things should clear up for me within the next week to 10 days, and I'll try to wrap up my work on the article then. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing any obvious problems, and judging from the lack of delists, neither is anyone else. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski[edit]

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

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

Review section[edit]

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

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

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

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

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised above include missing citations (please tag these) and choppy prose/short paragraphs. Maralia (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look through the end sections and noted the following:

References: I see two bare urls, other incomplete citations, and an extremely long piecemeal quotation that needs better handling. Ref formatting needs some work: I see two different page number styles (234–235 vs 205–6) and punctuation inconsistency (some end with full stops).
Bibliography: There are at least eight listed works (Budiansky, Christensen, Gannon, Hinsley, Kahn 1991, Kubiatowski, Miller, Wrixon) that are not actually cited. "Lawrence, 2005" is cited once, but two 2005 Lawrence works are listed; the cite may be intended to refer to both, but it's unclear. There is a lengthy exposition on the Jakóbczyk book for no apparent reason.
External links: This needs cleanup. The St. Andrews biography doesn't really offer anything additional, and all three of the linked photographs are dead links.

It is also rather difficult to associate the citations with the Bibliography because the citations are in "lastname, year" format but the Bibliography is "firstname lastname title location publisher year". Maralia (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on it, albeit slowly. Reference formatting and the Bib will probably be the last things I hit. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to Glrx and Laser brain for cleaning up the references, bibliography, and external links—the article is looking much better. I still see a few wonky cites ( {{harvnb|Lawrence|2005}} and {{harvnb|Kozaczuk|Straszak|2004|p=74}}) that need work, and a couple of quotes (Piskor, Woytak) and other exposition (sequence of rotors; French radio intelligence) that would be better off in the Notes section rather than citations. Maralia (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several footnotes that need to be resolved and/or cleaned up; the wonky cites are there for that reason. I haven't seen an actual copy of A Conversation with M R recently (the university library's copy is missing), but I think its author is Woytak rather M. R. & Woytak; however, some outside-of-WP citations use both as authors; I'm tempted to just make it Woytak1984b; that applies to a half-dozen citations.
There are still five references that have not been templated because I'm not sure how I should reference a comment/commenter to a journal article: it's a subcontribution by a different author that is part of the same journal article/digital object.
I revamped the hard-numbered Notes to use an automated mechanism, so moving a footnote to a note is just changing <ref></ref> to a {{refn}} with group=Note.
Glrx (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Which "A Conversation with Marian Rejewski" are you referring to? The same extracts from Richard Woytak's conversation with Rejewski, plus citations from letters by Rejewski to Woytak, together under that joint title, appear first in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), pp. 50–60, then (as Appendix B) in Władysław Kozaczuk, Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two, edited and translated by Christopher Kasparek, Frederick, Maryland, University Publications of America, 1984, pp. 229–39. The two versions are identical and, except for 8 brief questions posed by Woytak, consist entirely of Rejewski's words. Nihil novi (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice progress, but lots to be done still. There are red harv ref errors all over the place, and in this version, the first two citations ... are not citations or reliable sources. I didn't check further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've provided references to Rejewski's awards cited in the infobox. Regretably, the U.K. Ministry of Defence page "cannot be found" any longer; maybe someone can locate an active reference for Rejewski's War Medal 1939–1945. Nihil novi (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

At FARC for three weeks now, and no one has finished restoring the article. There are numerous sources in the References that are no longer used: how do we know the article is comprehensive, and represents a thorough survey of the literature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. Sorry, but despite the extensive bibliography there are still uncited parts. I'm also concerned that one third of his life is summed up in two sentences, indicating a lack of comprehensiveness. There's been alot of work around formatting, but the fundamental issues remain unaddressed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. There are layers upon layers of issues here. Cleaning up the references was a step in the right direction, but it served only to reveal other problems. I don't have the subject matter knowledge to think about addressing the comprehensiveness and source problems. --Laser brain (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporarily striking my declaration until I can review the latest progress. Seems like there are enough interested parties for a potential save. --Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thanks so much for the effort, Laser brain-- at least the article was left in better shape! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. A lot of work has been done, and only three paragraphs are unreferenced. I am still somewhat concerned on whether end-of-para citations are always covering all the info in a given para. I found the dead link in the IA, will fix it now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
fact claims can be resolved with
Glrx (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I see they've been fixed. I am changing my vote to Keep; references seem to be satisfactory now. Also, I've checked his bio entry in Polish online encyclopedias ([18], [19]), first one has a similar focus on his later life, and while the second one is more balanced, we do mention all of the facts from it as well. I don't have his PSB bio (if it exists), but I think the entry is reasonably comprehensive; most sources about his life focus on his Enigma-solving period, not what happened before or after. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Still not there. Notes are still all over the map, with a mix of inline citation, cite ref citation, and no citation. I'm not convinced all of the External links belong, and they are poorly described (Bauer??). Are the unused sources listed in Further reading useful, if so, why are they not used, if not, why are we retaining them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "Further reading": It seems to me that that why-retain-it argument could be made in respect to any article's "Further reading" section. And yet these sections do exist—for the same reasons as here. Nihil novi (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
My question was, are they useful (in terms of comprehensiveness), and if not, why are they there (that is, what are they adding)? Also, they are now used with the template citation, which is causing a big red ref error, since they aren't sources.

And, we still have a mixed citation style. The Notes are using inline citations, while everything else uses cite ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the "External links": Jan Bury's (is that your "Bauer"?) "The Enigma Code Breach" provides photos of French, Polish and Spanish personnel, drawn from various publications, which regrettably appear nowhere on Wikipedia. Tony Sale's "The Breaking of Enigma by the Polish Mathematicians" shows a diagram of the Polish cryptological bomb that was needlessly purged from Wikipedia a few years ago by an over-zealous copyright cop. "How Mathematicians Helped Win WWII", by the National Security Agency", includes a photo of "Adolf Hitler receiving the salute of German troops in Warsaw following their conquest of Poland", which actually shows him riding in his 6-wheel Mercedes before the Polish General Staff Building where the German Enigma had first been broken nearly 7 years earlier (!!); this poignant photo (taken from Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984), too, was purged—from the Wikipedia "Biuro Szyfrów" (Polish Cipher Bureau) article. "Enigma documents" provides reproductions of many source documents, including ones by Marian Rejewski. "Marian Rejewski and the First Break into Enigma", published this year (2015) by the American Mathematical Society, gives another view of Rejewski's mathematics, for those willing to challenge themselves. Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Bauer was already fixed in External links, and my other question was about "Further reading", not "External links" (you answered a different question-- please re-read the discussion above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I quote you from the discussion above: "I'm not convinced all of the External links belong..." What am I misunderstanding? Nihil novi (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
After that :) I asked: "Are the unused sources listed in Further reading useful, if so, why are they not used, if not, why are we retaining them?" Please see your post from 04:50 4 March and my response to that from 14:56 4 March. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in Laserbrain's Delist above, there are layers of problems with both prose and comprehensiveness everyone one looks in this article, and there are other concerns intimated by Piotr. The three Delists stand, and it doesn't appear that, after almost a month at FAR, this will be salvageable. The prose is rough, and one is left with questions in numerous places (indicated in two examples below with unaddressed inline comments). These are samples only:

  • Convoluted prose sample. On 21 November 1946, Rejewski, having been on 15 November discharged from the Polish Army in Britain, returned to Poland to be reunited with his wife, Irena Maria Rejewska (née Lewandowska, whom Rejewski had married on 20 June 1934) and their son Andrzej (Andrew, born 1936) and daughter Janina (Jeanne, born 1939, who would later follow in her father's footsteps to become a mathematician).
  • That is followed by an overlong quote, and ...
  • Prose and comprehensive issue combined ... in 1950 they demanded that he be fired from his employment !--why? please expand-- as an inline comment ... fired from his employment?
  • Repetitive and unclear prose. What little was published attracted little attention.
  • Would follow after 1974? Still, this was closer to the truth than many British and American accounts that would follow after 1974.
  • Another unaddressed inline comment: On 9 January 1942, Różycki, the youngest of the three mathematicians, died in the sinking of a French passenger ship as he was returning from a stint in Algeria to Cadix in southern France.< --why did the ship sink? how did it affect Rejewski? >

There are short choppy paragraphs throughout. The three Delists stand; the article has been improved, but it is not close to FA quality and it seems unlikely to make it there without a significant rewrite. I remain at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

About Różycki's death (from Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, p. 128):
"For security and personal safety, the Poles seldom participated in courier missions or the like. An exception was departures [from Cadix] for two- to three-month stints at the Château Couba [on the outskirts of Algiers]. One such expedition across the Mediterranean ended tragically. In circumstances that remain unclear to this day, the French ship Lamoricière, on which four Poles were returning from Algiers, suffered catastrophe on 9 January 1942, near the Balearic Islands. It is not clear whether, amid a raging storm, the ship struck a reef or one of the thousands of mines that the belligerents were laying. Killed in the Lamoricière catastrophe were Capt. Jan Graliński, Jerzy Różycki, and Piotr Smoleński.[...] Also lost was a French officer accompanying the Poles, Capt. François Lane."
How did Rejewski feel about the loss of Różycki? Nearly 38 years later, on 25 November 1979, he wrote Richard Woytak in a letter quoted in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), p. 59, and in Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, pp. 238–39:
"As a person, he was a very good friend, cheerful, sociable. He died on 9.I.1942 [9 January 1942] when, while returning from Algiers to France, the ship on which he was sailing, the Lamoricière, sank after hitting submerged reefs or perhaps [a] mine. He had married shortly before the war in Poland, and when he left Poland [in September 1939] he left behind his wife and a child of several months. His son is presently living in England...."
Nihil novi (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the "Marian Rejewski" "Back in Poland" section. I've re-edited it. Does anything there remain unclear?
Are there any other specific passages in the article that still require editing or sourcing?
Nihil novi (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the information about Różycki (above) in a note, I've done further editing, and I have added some information. Others have also contributed. Any further suggestions to improve the article would be appreciated. Nihil novi (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

My Delist stands; unfortunately, I don't think this article can be salvaged in the lifespan of a Featured article review, and an independent copyedit by an editor fluent in the topic would be needed to make the text comprehensible.

Your dedication to the topic is commendable, and your work has improved the article, but everywhere one's eyes falls, there are glaring prose and MOS issues. On the trivials, there are WP:PUNC, WP:ENDASH, and WP:EMDASH issues. There are wikilinking issues everywhere.

More significant is the need for a thorough rewrite and copyedit. The section "Enigma machine" is a convoluted and at times ungrammatical description of the machine even for those who understand what it is. Here is a sample sentence, found by simply scanning to the end of the article and reading the first sentence in a random paragraph:

  • Rejewski took satisfaction from his accomplishments in breaking the German Enigma cipher for nearly seven years (beginning in December 1932) prior to the outbreak of World War II and then into the war, in personal and teleprinter collaboration with Bletchley Park, at least until the 1940 fall of France.

    Here's another:

  • As it became clear that war was imminent and that Polish resources were insufficient to keep pace with the evolution of Enigma encryption (e.g., due to the prohibitive expense of an additional 54 bombs and due to the Poles' difficulty in producing in time the required 60 series of 26 "Zygalski sheets" each), the Polish General Staff and government decided to let their Western allies in on the secret.

    Another issue:

  • ... that one mathematics professor describes as "the theorem that won World War II."

    The reader should be told who that prof is ... and why does his/her opinion matter, anyway?

    These are only samples, not intended to be a comprehensive list. I do not believe this article can be salvaged without an independent copyedit by someone who is also a knowledgeable in the content area.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The identity of the mathematics professor, Cipher A. Deavours (one of the editors of the quarterly Cryptologia, on this occasion writing in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing), was already in the attached note; but I've put the information into the text itself, for those disinclined to read notes. Nihil novi (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added information about the Poles' Enigma-breaking techniques, especially to the section on "Rejewski's bomba and Zygalski's sheets", which should make the procedures and financial challenges clearer. Thanks for pointing out areas that can benefit from more attention. Nihil novi (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You have been very helpful in inspiring efforts to make the text clearer and more communicative.
If you could now point out a few instances of "ungrammatical" writing, I (or others) could try to improve the grammar—or demonstrate why the text in question is not ungrammatical.
Thanks again.
Nihil novi (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Could the @WP:FAR coordinators: please give some indication of what they are waiting for or expecting from this FAR, which has multiple Delist declarations more than a month old? As a random sample, can someone explain what "Naval code" refers to here, and examine the prose ... why is "by later report" there? An independent copyedit by a topic expert is still needed. Delist stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"In late October or early November 1932, while work on the Naval code was still underway, Rejewski was set to work, alone and in secret, on the output of the new standard German cipher machine, the Enigma I, which was coming into widespread use. While the Cipher Bureau had, by later report, succeeded in solving an earlier, plugboard-less Enigma, it had had no success with the Enigma I."
The "Naval code" was, of course, the German naval code referred to in the previous paragraph. In case this was unclear to any other reader, I have added the word "German" to the term "naval code".
The phrase "by later report" referred to A.P. Mahon's secret report, written a dozen years later in 1945 and cited in note 4, on The History of Hut Eight: 1939–1945. The expression "by later report" is obviously not indispensable, so I have deleted it.
Thank you. Are there any other passages which strike you as unclear or perhaps inelegant?
Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you locate a copyeditor knowledgeable in the content area to go through the entire article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that there is anything substantial that is incorrect in the text.
I suggest that you continue raising your concerns, which can then be clarified as above.
Another possible approach: Put a notice on cryptology-related pages, inviting reviews.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This article's prose is quite dense, fairly technical, relies heavily on extremely long footnotes, and definitely tends toward the verbose, so I understand why Sandy asked for a full copyedit. She's certainly not the only person who has pointed out prose issues during this FAR, so I think it's rather uncharitable to frame them as her concerns. There is a breaking point somewhere between "these 5 things need to be fixed" and "there are so many things that need to be fixed that a copyedit is needed", and on earlier read-throughs of the article I have to say I too felt the latter was necessary. However, given the many prose issues already pointed out and addressed, I've just re-read the article (for the umpteenth time) and I now feel that it is nearly there. Here are the issues I see at this point:

  • Tortured prose - This sentence is incomprehensibly long: "Rejewski used a mathematical theorem—that two permutations are conjugate if and only if they have the same cycle structure—that mathematics professor Cipher A. Deavours, co-editor of the quarterly Cryptologia—in a commentary to Rejewski's posthumously published 1981 paper, "How the Polish Mathematicians Deciphered the Enigma", in the Annals of the history of Computing—describes as "the theorem that won World War II."" I understand that the Deavours/Cryptologia details were added in response to a request above, but the sentence still needs some refining; we only need enough info about Deavours to understand why his comment is notable.
  • Italics and scare quotes - Usage needs to follow WP:MOS. Foreign language terms (bomba) should be in italics throughout. Code names (Ultra, Cadix, PC Bruno, Bolek, Pierre Ranaud) can be given in plain text, or italics, or scare quotes—but pick only one. Proper names, even foreign names, should be given in plain text, not in italics as has been done with Andrzej and Janina.
  • Endashes - "French-Polish-Spanish radio-intelligence unit" and "Polish-French-Spanish Cadix center"should use endashes between the nationalities per WP:ENDASH.
  • Emdashes - There are both unspaced emdashes and spaced emdashes; per WP:EMDASH one convention should be used consistently throughout.
  • Copyediting - Need to fix typos such as "cryptologiic" and [[Marian Rejewski#Recognistion)|posthumously]] (this is also a bit of an easter egg); repeated words such as "should have told him told him better"; repetition such as "Cipher Bureau (Biuro Szyfrów)" and "Biuro Szyfrów (Cipher Bureau)" inside the same section as well as the Grand Cross mentioned in the Back in Poland section and again in Recognition; confusing lack of chronological order such as in Back in Poland where we have 1946 1934 1946 1947–1958 1967 1969 1939 1944 1942 etc, and also "a few years before his death" and "a year and a half before his death" and "posthumously" before his death itself is even mentioned.
  • Citations - A couple of citations are missing accessdates; another is missing both author and publisher information.
  • Quotation - I have a couple of issues with the Woytak quotation in the Notes section. First, I honestly cannot parse it through the italics, single and double quotes, ellipses, brackets, etc. Second, the quote is something like 350 words long, which (per WP:COPYQUOTE) puts it within the realm of a possible copyright infringement. Summarizing it in our own words would avoid that issue and hopefully make it easier to understand.

I really appreciate when editors pitch in to save an article at FAR. It's clear that this article is vastly improved, but there is a bit more to be done. Maralia (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia, for pitching in ; perhaps you have the energy to continue, but my feeling was that the article was desperately in need of new eyes to fix the numerous issues. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Maralia, thanks for your insightful fresh look at the text.
I've revised several of the bigger items cited.
Perhaps someone could address punctuation errors and typos that I may not spot.
Are there any other passages that would benefit from further attention?
Thanks for the very constructive critique!
Nihil novi (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the chronology of the Rejewski family vicissitudes, recounted in the "Back in Poland" section, is a little chaotic, but partly that reflects the chaos of wartime events in their lives.
I'm not sure how to re-chronologize the respective events without disrupting the flow of narrative in the article's other sections. Nihil novi (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this another pass after Laser has been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)