Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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 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 FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian Rose—determines 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 director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate: 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whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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. 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 delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured portals Featured topics Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Current Main Page requests Potential Main Page requests Today's featured article statistics Most viewed today's featured articles Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nomination procedure Toolbox disambig links edit count external links alt text 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. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. 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 director 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 sub-section, 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 sub-headings with semi-colons, 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.

Nominations

Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) &  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... We have worked on it very hard to bring Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded to good article status. Now with the help of Dan56 (talk · contribs) who copy-edited it, I think that it is nearly ready to become a FA. We would like all the nominators who oppose, to bring their issues here so we can resolve it. Thank you! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sonny Bill Williams

Nominator(s): Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because i think it meets all of the FA criteria and is quite detailed in its content.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Greed (film)

Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it did not receive much feedback when it was recently nominated and I think that it is qualified to be FA. Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Tommy Amaker

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the requirements. This is part of my attempt to put basketball back on the map at WP:FAC. Recently, my nomination of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5 was the first WP:NBA article to become an WP:FA in almost 4 years. WP:CBBALL has gone through a similar drought aside from nominally associated articles such as Jackie Robinson and Otto Graham.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. the recent WP:PR reviewer, Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), suggested that I have someone else take a look at the article. I was able to get Finetooth (talk · contribs) to do a copyedit. Both the PR and the copyedit helped the article a great deal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment didn't take a deeper look, but the red links (one right in the lead!) might be a problem when other reviewers arrive... igordebraga ≠ 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have fixed several redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Slashed dates (e.g. "Harvard's highest poll rankings AP (22, 1/2/12) and Coaches (21, 1/2/12 & 2/6/12)") are ambiguous and should be replaced. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • replaced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Nexus 7

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...it is complete, well-written and stable enough to be considered worthy of FA distinction. To give a bit of background information, the article was primarily developed by myself in the middle of last year, before being listed as a GA article in August. My editing skill was put through its paces during the article's follow-up peer review by Nikkimaria. I encourage, welcome, and would appreciate any comment or input during this FAC process. Regards --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments The Nexus 7 has been a landmark device and caused me to convert from iOS to Android, and it's good to see such a fine article on it. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• As an initial comment, I (and some other editors) have been critical of earlier FA nominations of newish electronic devices on the grounds that there was likely to be significantly more coverage of the device and it wasn't yet possible to evaluate it in context. Given that the Nexus 7 is reportedly going to be replaced soon and has attracted acres of high-quality coverage, that doesn't seem a problem here at all.
• "and built by an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) partner" - can 'original equipment manufacturer' be translated into layman's language?
• "Incorporating built-in Wi-Fi and near field communication (NFC) connectivity" - a version which connects through mobile phone networks is now available: [1] (as noted later in the article)
• "Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt confirmed that a Google-designed tablet" - does 'confirmed' mean that there had been speculation prior to this interview?
• "Google would have stronger competition against Apple Inc., the designer of the popular iPad tablet" - I think that you can drop the 'inc' given that 'Apple' is the common name
• Why did Google select Asus for this project? Did Asus and other companies have to put in a bid, or did Google hand pick them due to their track record?

• Andy Rubin said, "I don’t think there would have been any other partner that could move that fast." TechnoBuffulo interpreted this to mean that Google thought Asus was the only company that could move quickly enough. But this came after Asus's "top executives met Google’s top executives at CES to talk about opportunities and how they saw the future market." I cannot find the thinking behind the selection, but, no bidding was involved. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK. I've read that Google hand picked LG to develop the Nexus 4 phone as they really liked LG's most recent type of phone and believed that it was the leader in screen design, so it's likely that something like this took place here as well. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "while Google sent seven engineers to Asus' headquarters" - where's this located?
• "Having employees working near Google's offices allowed the engineering team to have a 24-hour development cycle" - why was this the case? (presumably this is related to the point above)

• Sorry? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why did co-locating staff near Google's headquarters allow this? Couldn't a shift system in wherever Asus is based have achieved the same thing? (I presume the issue is that it allowed one shift in the US and another shift in East Asia to alternate). Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe because Google was the lead designer of the tablet, and that having Asus engineers on site sped up the design process? I'm not aware of any rationale behind this arrangement. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 04:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "he also noted that both tablets were being sold at thin profit margins" - it might be worth noting here why Google runs the Nexus program (eg, to push hardware developers and to showcase what its operating system can do, rather than to make much money from the Nexus devices themselves)

• Sorry, I cannot find any credible source that says this. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The stock market reacted positively to the announcement, as shares of Google increased by 0.8 percent to US$569.37 that afternoon" - the reference doesn't say that this was in response to the announcement, and it's hardly a major fluctuation so attributing it to this event is probably a bit difficult.

• I've removed the first clause of the sentence. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Nexus 7 would be progressively released to a number of selected markets during the following several months." - not referenced, and tense reads a bit odd oddly
• "cards that it predicts they will want" - who they 'they' is here isn't clear (is it the user or Google?)
• "a rubbery, leathery texture intended to improve grip and comfort holding the device" - 'improve' relative to what? (how about 'help users to grip and hold the device', or similar?)
• "which would negatively impact sound quality" - how about "which would harm sound quality"? ('negatively impact' is pretty ugly, though I'm guilty of using it!)
• "Asus changed the device's design" - was this a change made during the development of the device, or relative to an earlier device?
• "a mobile industry analyst estimated that the device most likely sold" - can you name who this analyst is to help readers evaluate how much faith to place on their views?
• "Nexus 7 owned 8% of the global Android tablet market share" - can products really "own" market share? How about "Localytics reported that the Nexus 7 accounted for 8% of the global Android tablet market share" or similar? Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• All addressed except for a few issues. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 01:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

The writing could do with a workout.

• The word "Google" is used excessively on occasion. For eg: "sent a design team to Googleplex, Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California, while Google sent seven engineers to Asus' headquarters in Taiwan. Having employees working near Google's offices allowed the engineering team to have a 24-hour development cycle, but Shih needed to later add 40 people to the project to meet Google's requests." (use a ctrl+F and highlight-all to catch these)
• Similarly for Asus in paras 2 and 3 in the first section.
• "Gmail, YouTube, Google Maps, Google Calendar, Google+, Google Wallet and Google Currents"—is it necessary to mention so many by name? If yes, I suggest changing the first bit to "The Nexus 7 comes with many Google applications by default..." and removing the multiple Googles afterwards.
• "The Nexus 7 comes with many applications by default"—question of tense. A few years from now, when this device is old and museum-worthy, will this article continue to use the present tense? Is there any way to write this article so that it doesn't need to be rewritten when the device is no longer produced?
• "GameStop, Sam's Club, Adorama, Staples, B&H Photo Video, and Kmart"—couldn't they be replaced with "several retailers"?
• "cut by US$20 to US$149 and US$179" → "cut by $20 to $149 and $179" looks much more elegant and readable. Since no other kind of dollar is used in the article, can this changed be made throughout the article? (maybe the first one can remain US$) Better check with the relevant MoS first though.
• "A second version of the Nexus 7 will reportedly be launched in July 2013."—will this have its own article, or will this one see significant changes?
• "The Nexus 7 would be progressively released.." that's a weird sentence, because it reads as though it hasn't been released in Portugal and India yet.
• The infobox is looong. I think a lot of that —info should be moved to a table in a new Specifications section at the bottom of the article. The infobox is intended to give basic info about the article's subject, which is usually expanded upon elsewhere in the article. It is not meant for an exhaustive listing of the product's specs.
• Excessive detail—as mentioned before about the preloaded apps and names of retailers, a few details appear excessive to me. These can either be removed to moved to a footnotes section so that they don't get in the way of the main article's readability and distract the reader's attention:

• "would receive a US$25 credit..."—can the rest simply be "to spend on Google Play, and several freebies, including a free movie, book and magazines."
• People's designations needn't be so descriptive, especially when the designation doesn't add much to the reader's understanding: "head of UK and Nordic markets", "Former manager of the Google Android division", "Director of Product Management for Android". Often just a "senior executive" will suffice.
• "Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom, and releases in France, Germany, and Spain"—are so many territories needed in the lead?

• Overlinking: there's a lot of blue here. Pre-order, pre-installed, profit margins, mass production. Please review throughout.

I've copyedited the lead to illustrate what I was pointing out above—simplifying the text, cutting overlinking and trimming details. I hope it can be done for the rest of the article too.122.172.22.100 (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Henry I of England

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it covers the current literature on Henry I of England fully. Henry I was a major player in Europe and a pivotal King of England, and this is a relatively popular article on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (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) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review:

• Consistency required in adding "UK" to publisher locations

• Fixed one. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Check Hollister page no. in ref 9

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "David" in ref 323 has neither year nor page no.

• The only David I can see in ref 323 is "David, Carpenter (7 July 2006). "Off the rocks". Times Literary Supplement. Retrieved 22 February 2013." If that's the one, there's a year, but no page reference as the on-line version doesn't use them. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "White" in ref 327 has no page number.

• Done, and thanks Brian! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise, all sources and citations look OK. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Further comments on a couple of issues:

• "Matilda": Henry was the son of a Matilda; he married a Matilda; his legitimate daughter was named Matilda, as were two of his illegimate children. His son William was betrothed to yet another Matilda. Either there were fewer names going around then, or the nobility had little imagination; either way, it is sometimes difficult in the article to know which Matilda is being written about. I wonder if a few clarifications could be put in place, to reduce the confusion.

• I sympathize. The Normans were not an imaginative bunch when it came to names... :) Were there any points where particular confusion crept in? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The "Death" section ends with an uncited statement: "The Empress Matilda did not give up her claim to England and Normandy, leading to the prolonged civil war known as the Anarchy between 1135 and 1153."

• Added one in. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

In general the article looks a pretty thorough piece of work, though I probably won't have time to read it in detail for a while. I hope it gets some attenton and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Coronation caption shouldn't end in period
• File:Mont_St_Michel_3,_Brittany,_France_-_July_2011.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, you'll need a licensing tag for the structure itself (it's definitely PD, just needs to be explicit)
• File:Louis_VI_denier_Bourges_1108_1137.jpg: again, as 3D work, this needs a tag for the object as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what you mean about France and FoP, but I'm struggling to find the correct tag to use - is there any chance you point me in the direction of an image that already has one? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

George Juskalian

Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the article contains photographs are directly from the family archives. He was an interesting man who received a lot of page views since the article was created. The information in the article is very well sourced and highly detailed. I believe it is a great fit for FAC. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest collapsing long lists in infobox
• All Institute of Heraldry links appear to be broken - not sure if this is a temporary problem or not, should recheck later
• File:Us_legion_of_merit_rib.png and File:Us_silverstar_rib.png should use {{PD-USGov-Military award}} (on Commons)
• File:US_Army_Airborne_basic_parachutist_badge.gif: source link is dead, and as badge is 3D, should clarify whether the given license applies to badge, photo, or both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment I'll collapse the infobox a bit. Which link exactly is broken? I couldn't find an All Institute of Heraldry references. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Gagak Item

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, despite its length, I am certain it meets the criteria. Gagak Item, a 1938 film, has been essentially forgotten by the media; very little seems to have survived. What is here is the result of extensive pouring over sources and providing context adequate for the average reader. As such, this article is easily the most detailed look at the film available. I'd like to thank all of the editors who gave a non-formal peer review at the talk page: Wehwalt, Sarastro1, Cassianto, and SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Given the limited information available from what appears to be an extensive search of the sources, I think this is a rather nice little article in a rather unusual area (unusual for me, at least). Although short, this is well-written, covers what does seem to be available and is not padded out with superfluous information to make it bigger or more complex. My few concerns were dealt with at PR and I rather like this interesting piece. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Schro! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Generally following SchroCat; I was also one of the peer reviewers. Well done given the limited material.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62. The brevity of the article is a bit unusual for a FA, but WP:WIAFA says that an article should be comprehensive, not long. I will accept the nominator's sourcing efforts in good faith unless someone can demonstrate that there are gaps in coverage. That said, here are some nitpicks: -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• In the lead, the relationship between the three phrases "Gagak Item", "De Zwarte Raaf", and "Black Raven" is a bit muddled. It is made clear that "De Zwarte Raaf" is Dutch, and that "Black Raven" is English, but it is never explicitly stated that "Gagak Item" is an Indonesian phrase. Until I typed it into Google translate, I thought it was also Dutch. I think the solution is to simply swap out "literally" for "Indonesian for".

• Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• "directed by Joshua and Othniel Wong for Tan's Film" I think it wouldn't hurt to give a bit more context on Tan's Film. One possibility: "directed by Joshua and Othniel Wong for the now-defunct production house Tan's Film"

• It says down below that the company went belly up in 1942. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Although the titular bandit was similar to Zorro, a character popular in the Indies at the time, similar figures had been a staple of travelling theatre troupes beginning in the early 1930s." I don't understand why this sentence starts with "although".

• Don't quite recall myself. Rephrased. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gagak Item featured vocals by Annie Landauw" Is there any indication in the source as to why this person is notable?

• I don't mind removing that clause, but I'm pretty certain Annie is notable enough for her own article (getting the references would be difficult, but there is enough for at least a stub). She acted in at least three films and appears to have been a fairly popular recording singer. Apa dan Siapa Film Indonesia also has a brief biography of her. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• My vote would be to give some introductory phrase and to redlink her: "Gagak Item featured vocals by Dutch actress (or whatever) Annie Landauw." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• She may have been Indo (Eurasian), so Dutch would possibly be incorrect. Added a redlink and "actress" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The film is likely lost." I think the meaning of this could be elaborated upon. Does "lost" mean "destroyed" or "location unknown"? Or both?

• Click through, it goes to "lost film". Either meaning is possible; sometimes lost films are rediscovered years later. I remember DYK had one about an American film which was rediscovered in April. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do any of the sources speculate as to which outcome is more likely for this particular film? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Nope, and looking at the context its easy to see why. Aside from being made on highly flammable nitrate film, works from the era had to survive the Japanese occupation, National Revolution, and poor maintenance from the fifties onwards (even today Sinematek Indonesia is terribly underfunded and a lot of its collection is moldy and rotting). Something could theoretically still be extant, but my hopes aren't high. Sadly I don't have any references tying the survival of films with the looting and violence during the occupation and revolution (for instance Bandung, one of the early centres of domestic cinema, was partially razed to the ground in the mid 1940s) and poor maintenance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Happy to be of service. Thanks for all of your efforts on this so far. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment So, nothing more is available on the plot?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the note on plot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I commented on the talk page before this FAC. I think this article is comprehensive, albeit short! But I have no problems with its length, and I think the prose is clear and tight, which such a short article needs to be. Good work, and another interesting film article. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- Great things come in small packages; ever true with this fine piece of work. Congratulations! -- Cassianto^Talk 12:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

This article describes the service history of a variant of the famous Douglas A-4 Skyhawk fighter jet operated by the Royal Australian Navy and Royal New Zealand Air Force between 1967 and 1991. Twenty of these aircraft were built for the RAN, which operated them from its only aircraft carrier. Half of the A-4Gs were destroyed in accidents (killing two pilots) before the type was retired by Australia in 1984. The survivors were sold to the RNZAF, which subsequently upgraded and redesignated them as part of a program which was completed in 1991. Two of the former Australian aircraft were lost in crashes in 2001 (killing a pilot), shortly before the disbandment of the RNZAF's fighter force.

This article was assessed as a GA in April, and passed a military History Wikiproject A-class review yesterday. As I've exhausted the literature on this aircraft type and have further copy edited the prose, I think that it should also meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

• "Accidents" caption should end in period
  • Fixed
• New Zealand Herald or The New Zealand Herald?
  • Fixed (it's the latter)
• Compare location for Eather and Wilson. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for these comments Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC):

• "in November 1959 it was announced that the FAA would cease to operate fixed-wing aircraft from 1963" I don't understand the use of the preposition "from" here. Perhaps "in"?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• "the Australian aircraft did not have an avionics hump and were fitted to operate AIM-9B Sidewinder air-to-air missiles" Singular-plural disagreement. "an avionics hump" suggests one aircraft, "were fitted" suggests many.
  • I don't agree with this I'm afraid. 'Aircraft' can refer to more than one, and saying that 'the Australian aircraft did not have avionics humps' implies that each US aircraft had multiple humps. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • How about this: "The main differences between the 'F' and 'G' variants were that the latter did not have an avionics hump and was fitted to operate AIM-9B Sidewinder air-to-air missiles." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The Government's Defence Committee subsequently recommended that FAA fighter pilots be attached to a United States Marine Corps unit stationed at Chu Lai, but not take part in American operations over North Vietnam." Why would fighter pilots be sent to Vietnam if they were not to take part in military operations? This seems like an enormous expenditure with no benefit. Maybe the answer to this is obvious to a milhist enthusiast, but to a science dork like me, it really doesn't make any sense.
  • Perhaps if it read "combat operations"? Military personnel are frequently exchanged between countries to gain non-combat experience in different environments. N.B. I reviewed this at MilHist ACR and will be recusing myself from delegate duties to comment further in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed, I think (I'd appreciate comments on the new wording though). The issue was that the Australian Government had decided that Australians would only fight in South Vietnam, and prohibited all military personnel serving with US units from ever crossing into neigbouring countries when their 'parent' units did. If the Australian pilots had been deployed they would have joined their USMC squadron in attacks in South Vietnam, but sat out raids on the north; No. 2 Squadron RAAF operated under the same rules during its period in Vietnam, but had the advantage of being a self-contained unit with its own aircraft. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• Link "aerobatics team" to something?
  • Done (for whatever reason there isn't an article on the teams per-se, but there is one on the general concept)
• "retained for target towing and radar and weapon calibration duties as well as other fleet support tasks" Yikes. Commas can be your friend: "retained for target towing, radar and weapon calibration duties, and other fleet support tasks"
  • Thanks - I've been struggling with that sentence, and that's a big improvement. Thanks also for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Operation Winter '94

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently completed MILHIST A-class review and benefited from subsequent improvements. The Operation Winter '94 was a battle fought in late 1994 in Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it is considered to be very significant to resolution of the Croatian War of Independence. Tomobe03 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Be consistent in whether flag icons link

• No flags in the "Belligerents" bit contain links, all flags in the "Commanders and leaders" bit do. {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} parameters prevent more consistent solutions than this.

• File:Bihac_Pocket_1994-1995.svg: what base map was used to create this image?

• Sourcing info added.

• File:Map_40_-_Bosnia_-_Livno_Valley_November-December_1994.jpg: link gives CIA as publisher and 2002 as date; where are you getting Diane 2003? Same with Map 52. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• An unfortunate result of conflation of data pertaining to 2002 and 2003 editions of the book. Since I'm looking at the 2002 edition here, the ref in the article is adjusted accordingly. [2]--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I tried to address all three issues.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack Hobbs

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Jack Hobbs is generally rated among the top cricketers of all time, and was something of a pioneer in terms of batting technique and in establishing professional cricket as a respected occupation. He scored more first-class runs than anyone is ever going to again, was lauded wherever he played and was successful into his mid-40s at the top level. And all the while being a thoroughly nice chap, about whom no-one had a bad word to say. This article is currently a GA, and had a very thorough PR. It is quite long, but Hobbs had a very long, eventful career and I believe the length to be justified. All comments welcomed. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers (and happily learned a thing or two during the process). All my minor quibbles were thoroughly dealt with there. This is, as the nominator says, a long article, but in my view it is the right length. There is no padding, no digression. The nature of the subject requires this length. The referencing is wide ranging and thorough, the proportions of the article well judged, the prose a pleasure to read; I am confident that this article meets the FA criteria. – Tim riley (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments and for your help at the PR. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images as peer reviewer. I gave fairly extensive comments at the PR and further suggestions on that page have only led to improvements. Striking, quite easy to follow. Length is not an issue as the article is all meat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and earlier comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review

• Check the link in ref 52 (I get "redirect loop")

• Not for the first time this week, the re-organised MCC website has really messed up articles! That page is no more, but managed to find some other refs to replace it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Also check ref 300 (I get "address not found")

• And another major organisation re-organises... But searching for a replacement ref (this is the Hall of Fame thing) I realised that no-one, except for a couple of newspapers in India and Pakistan, paid any attention to this, including the British press, the ECB and Cricinfo. And now the ICC don't seem to refer to it on their own site. I could ref that he was in the HoF, but such sparse coverage, plus the rather more prestigious accolades he received, makes me think it is rather a waste of time including it at all. So I've cut it completely. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's a minor format glitch in ref 312.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look fine. A fuller review comment will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I spent a fair time on the peer review. I've just read the article again, and can find nothing further to say other than praise. Once again, well done, and keep up the good work. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help and the kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments by SchroCat (talk)

Apologies for not being able to return for the PR, although you had some magnificent help there—and from much better editors than I. A few minor comments from me:

Overall

• This is a long article, but I found it pleasantly easy to read with no overly detailed areas, so well done on getting the difficult balance right there.
• Money. You add his salary, benefit receipts etc from time to time. I appreciate that not everyone is a fan of modern day equivalents, but perhaps footnotes to give some frame of reference? (I'm not pushing this as a "must-do", but it's certainly something to think about)

• There are useful comparisons in the "Family life" section, which give a good indication as to Hobbs's relatively affluent lifestyle. Calculated present-day equivalents are, in my view, best left out; there is no consensus as to their usefulness, and they often lead to arguments. The ifs and buts render such equivalents almost useless to the general reader. Brianboulton (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• What Brian said. I'd really prefer to avoid direct inflationary comparisons, and I could find no other data to compare except that in the Family life section. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem at all: as long as you've considered it and decided against it on solid grounds, then I'm happy with it. I understand the points on both sides regarding this one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

First-class cricketer

• Gentlemen v Players: "he was unsuccessful in both games". This leaves me itching to see what he did! Perhaps a note?

• Clarified that he scored few runs. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Dominance in South Africa

• Perhaps a link to University of Oxford, piped or otherwise?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Partnership with Sutcliffe

• Wife? When did that happen? There's no previous reference to him being married: perhaps a brief passing mention at the appropriate time, possibly (in addition to the more full section I see at the bottom of the article)?

• I've wrestled a bit with his wife! Adding her at the time of his marriage rather interrupts the flow and bloats the section. But she needs to be mentioned here as part of the events prior to the tour. So I've named her here but would prefer to otherwise confine her to the family section. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reputation and legacy

• "In 1963, Neville Cardus chose him as one of the best six cricketers of the past 100 years, to mark Wisden's centenary": past 100 years could be taken ambiguously, perhaps "the previous 100 years"?

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Footnotes

• 1: should Wisden be in italics?

• Yup. Done now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• 276: You list The Guardian as being published in London: I think it was still in based in Manchester in 1963 (with the move that followed in '64)

• Didn't realise that! I assumed it moved when it stopped being the Manchester Guardian. Great catch. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• 277: Date of retrieval isn't needed for news reports, even if acquired from an online source: you have the date and page, which is sufficient.

• I prefer to do so when including a url. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

All rather minor and only a couple of them being something that should be done: the remainder are more in the line of suggestions to think through. Aside from that, excellent work on a getting such a fine article crafted from such a large subject. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

All good and I've moved to a support on this - an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support -- I had my pennies worth at the peer review, and was more than happy with the responses. The article has only improved since then. It is well illustrated, thorough in its research, and the prose is excellent. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and kind comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I made my few measly comments at PR and have nothing more to add, other than that this is another in a long line of supurb cricket bios that is definitely worthy of the FA star. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

James Moore (Continental Army officer)

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This article, on a military figure who was perhaps one one of the lesser-known "what if's" of the American Revolutionary War, but about whom little is written in modern scholarship, has been painstakingly re-written with all of the sources I could possibly find on the subject. Where I couldn't get ready online access to sources, I bought them, including some book sources that qualify as antiques. This article is concise, but comprehensive, and is one of the key parts of my plans to make a Featured Topic out of North Carolina's Continental Army Generals. This is just my second foray into FAC, but I am happy to make any changes the community finds necessary. I appreciate your assistance in this review. Cdtew (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest not linking United Colonies flag icon to United States, especially as the US flag icon doesn't link there and they are separate entries in the infobox
• When an image has multiple credited authors, should specify to which the "life time" annotation applies
• File:NCMooresCreek1.png: what source was used to plot the troop movements?
• File:Sir_Henry_Clinton.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Responses:

• Flags: Done. I decided to try and be consistent with other AmRevWar pages (Benjamin Lincoln and George Washington, for instance) and put just KoGB and USA.
• Life time: Done.
• Source for troop movements: Pending. That was a creation of User:Magicpiano, and I'm inquiring with him for a quick answer. If, however, I don't get a response, I can cite to a source that confirms those general movements (obviously the arrows don't adhere strictly to the movements, but are directional in nature).
• Clinton: Done. This poses an interesting question, though – the image that I found at [3] has a claim that it's protected by "National Army Museum Copyright". I'm presuming this is some derivative of Crown copyright? Or is there something I should be concerned about in terms of it not being validly PD? I would really like to upload the version of the picture they have on their website, but I don't know if that would make matters worse. If it's going to be a problem, there are many other images of Clinton I could use.

Follow-up: I've gone ahead and decided to forego the headache, and have replaced it with a much more impeccably sourced and attributed picture. Cdtew (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Nikki - let me know if there are any other issues, and I will try to get back to you on Magicpiano's map. Cdtew (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In re File:NCMooresCreek1.png, I'm not sure I understand the problem. I imagine the short answer is that this map is based on the sources used in Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge that describe the various movements, and the drawings were done using Inkscape. If this doesn't address the issue, you'll have to elaborate on what exactly the concern is. Magic♪piano 00:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think what Nikki was getting at is that we'd likely need a source citation for the information used to create the maps. It shouldn't be hard for me to pull one from the article itself, but I didn't know if you used one in particular when creating the map. Sorry, didn't mean to be so vague. Cdtew (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not your vagary; I'd just like to understand what Nikki's asking for so that a proper response can be made. Magic♪piano 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Cdtew's got it: the drawings are fine, I'm just wondering how you knew which lines went where. Was it based on what was written in the article? (In which case, depending on how the article developed, you might need to specify which version). Did you look at source material directly? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the lines don't follow the movements with precision, they are more generalized point-to-point indicators based on my reading of the sources (if the sources say that one force went from Cross Creek toward Moore's Creek, draw an arrow that way; repeat as needed for other movements). I did substantial work on the battle article, and had access to all of the relevant sources. If you would like the file description to include those sources, that should be easy enough to do. Magic♪piano 23:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Marie Lloyd

Nominator(s): Cassianto^Talk 09:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Marie Lloyd was an English music hall singer, comedienne and musical theatre actress during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. She was perhaps best-known for her Cockney songs including "The Boy I Love is Up in the Gallery", "My Old Man (Said Follow the Van)" and "Oh Mr Porter What Shall I Do". Lloyd had a controversial act which relied heavily on innuendo and double entendre which caused mixed reviews from the theatrical press. However, she had a long and successful career, during which she became known as the "Queen of the Music Hall". Having spent the last few months researching this subject, I am now pleased to be able to bring this to FAC, and would be most greatful for any comments, thank you. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat

• Support from SchroCat (talk)
  

A couple of minor tweaks made, but feel free to revert if you disagree. I had the pleasure of reading through this at PR, and a subsequent reading post-GA brings only one question to check:

• The MacQueen-Pope quote that Lloyd was "going down hill of her own volition": does he use "down hill", or the more correct "downhill"?
  
  • He uses the more correct downhill, and not the former "down hill". That was from the fingers of an idiot I'm afraid. --Cassianto^Talk 12:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This minor query won't affect my support for what is a truly excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent reviewing skills at PR and pre-GAC. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Brianboulton

• Support: This article received a lot of attention at peer review (I was one of the reviewers). This, combined with the diligent research of the primary editors, has resulted in a delightful article which I'm happy to support, subject to clearance on images and sources. I am doing the sources review now, and will post shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: A couple of minor queries:

• Refs 12 and 186 appear to be one and the same

• Combined, thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 60: does this The Era article have a title?

• Yes, now added. --Cassianto^Talk 10:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for all your hard work at peer review and here Brian. It is much appreciated. --Cassianto^Talk 10:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sarastro

Comments: Read down to the end of "Drury Lane and success" so far. Looking good generally, but a few little errors in places. Also, a few other minor nit-picks. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Offstage, Lloyd had a turbulent private life that was often the subject of much press attention: she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her.": A few misgivings about this sentence. Firstly, I don't think we need "offstage" at first, as we then mention her private life. Second, it is quite long and perhaps a new sentence would be better after attention. And "she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her": seems a little inelegant. Maybe "Married three times and divorced twice, she frequently appeared in court to give evidence against two of her husbands, who had physically abused her". (And I wonder how frequently this was… But I have no better word)

• I have deleted "Offstage" as of course you were right on this point. However, your version of "Married three times and divorced twice, she frequently appeared in court to give evidence against two of her husbands, who had physically abused her", differs only very slightly from the current "she was married three times, divorced twice, and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her." It appears that just "she" is swapped around. Do you think it would be better to replace the colon with a full stop? --Cassianto^Talk 10:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• That would work. The other change in my suggested version was to tighten up the court part, but not a big issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• As per Gabe below, I fixed this. Sorry I missed this. --Cassianto^Talk 02:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is a little off-putting in the early life section to read about the Wood family and have her referred to as "Lloyd". It jars a touch. But if this is the convention in these cases, no problem, and not a big issue in any case.

• I am worried that If I used "Wood" when referencing her, then it would become confusing. Also, she was only very briefly referred to by her birth name when she was a child and was known as Lloyd. --Cassianto^Talk 10:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, you are probably right. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• It may be better to crop the family picture to remove the text, and add a caption which states who they are, and where Lloyd is to be found in the picture.

• Done, although the caption maybe formatted incorrectly. Could you check this? --Cassianto^Talk 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks fine to me, but I'm rubbish at captions. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Should it be "well cared-for"?

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Along with her sister Alice, she helped arrange family events where the Wood children often put on performances at the family home": Perhaps "Along with her sister Alice, she arranged family events in which the Wood children performed at the family home"?

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "called the Fairy Bell troupe comprising of her brothers and sisters": I always thought it should just be "comprising" and not "comprising of". But I may be wrong.

• Grammatically, you are correct but "comprising of" IMO reads better. Still, it would be incorrect for me to use the latter so I have changed it. --Cassianto^Talk 10:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• "John secured her unpaid employment as a table singer at the Eagle tavern in Hoxton, where he was employed as a waiter.": Employment … employed.

• Changed to "employed". --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Although happy to have her performing in her spare time, her parents initially objected at her desire to commit to the stage full-time.": I think this should be "objected to".

• Reworded. "Although happy to have her performing in her spare time, her parents initially objected to her desire to commit to the stage full-time" just didn't sound right. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• We use both "Eagle tavern" and "Eagle Tavern".

• Nice spot! --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Her performances were a success, despite her singing other artists' songs without their permission,[16] a practice which brought her a threat of an injunction from one of the original performers": I think this is a bit of a runaway sentence and should be split. In addition, I don't see the connection between her success and any legal issues, so the latter would not necessarily impact the former.

• I would rather keep this. She built her early success on the back of songs composed by and for other performers and composers. Obviously that was not on as she had not bought the rights to the songs, thus earning her a warning for using them. I think this early indication that she showed blatant disregard for the rules helps shape Lloyd into what she became famous for; a rule-breaker. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "where she met her agent George Ware": Presumably not her agent at the time!

• Tweaked. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "George Belmont, the Falstaff's, proprietor, secured her an engagement": I think we have a stray comma here.

• Done.--Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and one she continued to use[d] for the rest of her career"

• Done.--Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "By the end of 1886, Lloyd was playing several halls a night[30] and was earning £100 per week. She was now financially able…": Lots of "was" going on here.

• Got rid on one. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "She was now financially able to purchase new songs from established music hall composers and writers": Financially able does not sound quite right to me.

• Swapped to "afford". --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Unlike her West End audiences, her reputation as a "blue" performer did not impress her fans in the East End.": A bit baffled here. Starting "Unlike her West End audiences" leaves me wondering what these audiences did. And why would her reputation impress them, rather than a performance. And surely if they were fans, they wouldn't need impressing.

• Oddly, her posh West End audiences loved the dirty humour, while the working class lot loathed it. Tweaked. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "working close to home for a solid two months": Why "solid"?

• Deleted. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The engagement also gave her much needed experience": I think this should be "much-needed", but I wonder do we actually need this phrase at all? Needed for what?

• Well before this performance, her engagements often only catered for relatively small audiences. This performance was notable for being one of the first shows where she played to a large audience. I have since hyphenated "much needed". --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The following year, she found herself appearing": I think just "appeared" is enough here.

• Yes, fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 11:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "more Bohemian venues": Bohemian how?

• Bohemian inasmuch that the theatres were very stylish, dripping in gold leaf and plush carpets and scenery. They were of a more grand design than she had been used to up until that point. --Cassianto^Talk 02:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Successive sentences begin "the following year", and this expression appears seven times in the article.

• Deleted one, more to follow when I come accross them. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which further exacerbated her deteriorating relationship with her husband": I don't think you can exacerbate a relationship. Perhaps "exacerbated the deterioration of her relationship"

• Done.--Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He paid her the greatest compliment": Perhaps not entirely neutral here. Reads like editorial voice.

• Fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "She received mixed reviews from her opening performance": I think "for" rather than "from".

• Done.--Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with much skill": hints at POV.

• Removed. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "she toured the northern provinces": A bit grand? Why not just the north of England? And it looks like we are calling Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester "provinces".

• Used, thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "in a scene that required her to instead climb out of bed to pray": Split infinitive! Alert! (If you are of the school which doesn't mind, please ignore this one)

• done. --Cassianto^Talk 03:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Generally: watch out for overusing "Lloyd" (and obviously, I'd never be guilty of this!). I also wonder if there is some slight over-detailing. For example, do we really need to list what seems like every song she ever sung? And perhaps one or two of Courtenay's escapades are not needed, such as that at the theatre door? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, that dreaded noun/pronoun problem. I think at the moment it looks just about balanced, thanks to Tim going through it at peer review and blitzing her name. Secondly, I want to convey just how physically bad her relationship was with Courtenay. Sure, I may have over cooked it so I will go through and see what I can lose. --Cassianto^Talk 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

More comments: I've read to the end now, and have only found minor issues. This is a splendid piece of work and a very entertaining read. I'd heard of Lloyd, but knew little of her life. Just a few last suggestions, then I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lloyd's risqué songs were frequently receiving criticism from theatre reviewers": I'd prefer "…were frequently criticised by theatre reviewers", but no big deal.

• I have chosen similar. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Upon the expiry of the entertainments licence, the Licensing Committee tried to use the lyrical content of music hall songs as evidence against a renewal.": The licence of the Empire Theatre, presumably?

• No I think this was generally speaking. I have elaborated slightly. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and his calm and collected nature was a welcome antidote to the abusive and abrasive Courtenay": Editorial voice here.

• Tweaked. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Despite the marital problems, Lloyd went on an American tour with Hurley in 1908": Should this be "despite her/their marital problems"?

• Yes it should, thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• As above, I would suggest a crop of the Dillon Vanity Fair image to remove the border and wording.

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "were met at the American port by her sister Alice, who had long since been in the country": "who had long since" seems to be an odd phrase here.

• Changed to "resided in the country for many years". --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and protested at her billing position": Not too sure what this means.

• She was being egotistical I think. Back in those days (and today I think), a higher billing position is seen as being for the more important star in that particular play or performance. In this case, Lloyds was lower which she got angry about. Call it diva-like behaviour if you like. :-) --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "but she still managed to maintain her reputation": The previous paragraph suggests that her reputation was on the wane.

• redundant and removed. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In July 1919, Lloyd was again left off the cast list for that year's Royal Variety Performance": I think we could replace "that year's" with "the" as we give the year and say "again".

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "When Lloyd was mentioned for her efforts, she was compared to a "talented old aunt who must be allowed to have her turn at the piano even though all everyone really wants is jazz or go to the Picture Palace"": I think we need to say whose words these are.

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 12:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are a few more places where we list the songs she sang at a performance. I wonder how much would be lost if we cut these lists right back or even omitted some altogether. I doubt the general reader learns much from knowing that she sang a song of which the reader has probably not heard. I feel it may just help the article flow a little as the lists are a touch ponderous and I found myself skipping over them.

• I have had a heavy trim of the non-notable ones. If there are anymore, then please let me know. --Cassianto^Talk 15:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are there any other images of her? We just have the two at the moment, and I'm sure there must be others which are PD, as she died in 1922. For example, the Daily Mirror archive may have some more. I think it may be worth looking. (This one does not affect my support) A quick search here reveals this, this and this, for what it's worth. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have now happily added a further two images of her thanks to Crisco 1492. --Cassianto^Talk 04:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• My only other query is if there are any more contemporary opinions of her? She is largely forgotten, I suspect, although some people may remember the name. Without getting into a "in popular culture" theme, are there any modern opinions of her? If not, that isn't a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have spent a good few hours searching for this, but I have failed to find this. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support: This is an excellent article. The changes are looking very good. I think all my comments have been addressed, and any that haven't do not affect my support. Well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your kind comments and excellent review are both much appreciated. On the images, I have asked Crisco 1492 to work on a couple which I have found. I agree that there should be one or two more of her, and these will hopefully be uploaded imminently. Thanks again Sarastro! -- Cassianto^Talk 20:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Tim riley

• Support – (Sorry to barge in in the middle of Sarastro's comments. Please feel free to move my comments wherever they seem best put.) I peer reviewed this article, and all my comments were carefully and satisfactorily dealt with then. The sources of the article are wide ranging, the prose is pleasing to read, the balance and proportions are well judged. This seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Tim and for all your work at peer review. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Image review

• File:Empire_Theatre_(1896).jpg: when/where was this first published?

• I have replaced the photo, which was not possible to ascertain its original source, with an image that was released as a postcard by the Rotary Photographic Company in 1911. --Cassianto^Talk 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• File:Leicester_Square_with_the_Alhambra_formerly_the_Royal_Panopticon_ILN_1874.jpg: more information on Illustrated London News publication? Date, issue, page? Also, "This tag can be used only when the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry. If you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was"
  • Good old Commons! You can always rely on it to let you down. I've uploaded a fresh copy from the archives to English Wikipedia with the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag. It is at File:Leicester-square-1874-iln.jpg. Tim riley (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks Tim! --Cassianto^Talk 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Laura_Ormiston_Chant.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have now uploaded a new picture which should cure all the problems. -- Cassianto^Talk 03:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• No further issues I see, thank you for the review. --Cassianto^Talk 04:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc

• My first impressions are that the article looks very tight. Well done, Cassianto. I fully intend to support after a few minor nit-picks are resolved. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

General

Biography

• This is a matter of personal preference I think, but I don't see a need for the redundant header, "Biography", since the entire article is a biography.

• I dont know why, but I like to work in subsections and find this a neat alternative than having headed sections. What do others think? --Cassianto^Talk 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree that it is a matter of personal preference, and GabeMc's point is entirely taken. But for myself I find that using the top level heading for Biography then allows you to have second level headings for Early years etc, which (to my eye) makes the page flow better. Somehow the font of the second level headers smacks you in the eye less than the top level ones. For what it's worth, my own successful FA biographies follow the layout used here, and as far as I can remember, only one editor has objected to it so far. Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's good enough for me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Awkward. - "she was showcased as a teenager by her waiter father at his pub". Is there a better way to word this to avoid the text string "her waiter father"? This strikes me as awkward. Consider: "as a teenager she was showcased by her father at his pub", or similar.

• done. --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "In 1885, she scored a success with her hit song 'The Boy I Love is Up in the Gallery'". I would avoid the phrase "she scored a success". Maybe, "she was successful", or similar.

• done. --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "Between 1891 and 1893, she was recruited by the impresario Augustus Harris to appear in the spectacular". Is the exact recruitment year unknown? This reads like she was recruited sometime during those three years, yet I get the feeling that she was recruited in 1891 and worked with Harris through 1893.

• I had a go. I didn't really want to go into too much detail here as it is only the lede after all, but I can see the vagueness of it. --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Word choice. - "fighting for better pay and conditions for performers". Is there a better word choice here for "fighting"? Perhaps "arguing" or "demonstrating", or similar.

• Yes, how about protesting? --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds great to me. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Linking. - "During the First World War". This should be linked on the first mention in the lead and the first mention in the article body.

• Would this be overlinking inasmuch that it is commonly used phrase and historical event? --Cassianto^Talk 10:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think so, but of course this is a very minor point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Redundancy. - "she supported other performers" is closely followed by "she supported recruitment". Maybe swap one of the "supported"s for another term of similar meaning.

• I have changed the first "supported" with "assisted". --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wordy. - "Lloyd had a turbulent private life that was often the subject of much press attention", consider: "Lloyd's turbulent private life was often the subject of much press attention", or similar.

• I think the past participle is ok. If I used "Lloyd's turbulent private life was often the subject of much press attention", then it would look like I have already spoken of it, which I haven't. I would be suddenly springing it on the reader that she had a turbulent private life, rather than introducing it such as I do here. What do others think? --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "and frequently found herself in court giving evidence against two of her husbands who had physically abused her". Consider: "and frequently found herself giving court testimony against two of her husbands who had physically abused her", or similar.

• Done. --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Word choice. - "scored a late success in 1919". Maybe its just me, but I would avoid using "scorded" in this context, as it sounds a bit slangy to me.

• Changed.

• Confusing. - "which earned her a new audience". Had she lost her "old" audience?

• Swapped for "extended". --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Excess passive voice. - "during which she was taken ill on stage", consider: "during which she became ill on stage".

• Fixed. --Cassianto^Talk 11:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Prose. - "during which she was taken ill on stage, dying a few days later at the age of 52." Consider: "during which she became ill on stage. She died a few days later at the age of 52", or similar.

• I have adopted your version, thanks. --Cassianto^Talk 11:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Family background and early life

• The files: File:Marie Lloyd family photo.jpg and File:Eagle Tavern in 1841.jpg are sandwiching text in the section.

• Unavoidable I think. It looks fine on my monitor (but then I use a tablet screen mostly). I would hate to lose either as both are integral to the article. --Cassianto^Talk 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Putting my oar in again, I have been advised by a Wikipedia luminary that there are so many different sizes and types of screen now used to view Wikipedia that it is not feasible to lay out a page that will suit everybody. Some users will see sandwiched images; others will see an inch or more of white space between paragraphs; the latter drives me into a gibbering frenzy, but is probably something up with which we inevitably have to put. I'll shut up now. Tim riley (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your oar Tim. I don't think there is a winner here, but I would rather keep these two important images than lose one for the sake of preventing some sandwiching. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks much for your well-regarded opinion Tim. I tend to agree and appreciate the clarity with which you've explained this point. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. - I've read through the article a few times now and I can't find any problems that don't come down to editorial preference. The article is well-written, well-researched and comprehensive without being overly detailed. In fact its one of the tightest FACs I've ever read. Its a fine contribution to the project, so thanks for working on such an interesting and informative piece about an important figure. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC) In progress ... more to come. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• ...and coming from the editor who brought the excellent Beatle biographies to FAC, this is certainly a compliment to be proud of. Thanks for you review and support Gabe! --Cassianto^Talk 22:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Kahaani

Nominator(s): Msrag, Dwaipayan

I am nominating this for featured article because the article, currently a Good Article, underwent a significant peer review, with excellent contribution from Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) and Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs). The article is on a Bollywood film, noted for its woman-centric theme,and also for being a surprise hit. Please have a look. Regards.Dwaipayan (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm very sorry to have to do this, as I think the subject is worthy and the coverage unimpeachable, but it's just not written in idiomatic English. I'm not going to list a few examples, as all that happens then is that they're fixed, I list a few more, they're fixed as well, and ultimately I end up having to copyedit the whole article. The bottom line is that this article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, you have correctly described the knee jerk reaction style copyedits that articles, in particular articles developed primarily by non-native English speakers, undergo during FAC. I apologize for the lack of idiomatic English; yes, we Indians tend to use a form of English prevalent in India (sometimes called Indian English) which is not really well-defined.

Since you have found extensive non-idiomatic English use, we can withdraw this nomination, and work on that aspect. As you have said, a native English speaker (preferably British English user) will need to do a copyedit. The problem is finding someone who would do that. Since you have read parts of the articles I guess, would you be kind enough to at least guide us in the copyediting? Time is not a factor at all. You can take as long as you wish.

Finally, thanks a lot for stating that coverage of this article is sufficient; at least one aspect of A criteria is met :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't withdraw it just on my say-so, I could be completely off base. Wait and see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I personally think this is ready to go, but I'll defer to Malleus on this one regarding prose quality (not opposition) as I may be too close to the matter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC) edited 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  I don't think this should be withdrawn either, especially as the nominators and I are working together on improving the prose, which is why I struck my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Karma in Jainism

Nominator(s): Rahul Jain (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well-sourced and beautifully written article. It meets all the criteria of a Featured Article. If there is any minor issue left out, I will clear it as soon as possible. Rahul Jain (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Images File:Soul Attracting Karma.jpg looks like copy-pasted clip art. I'm unconvinced that it's genuinely public domain. File:Destruction of Karmas1.jpg is from the same user, User:Indian Chronicles. All other images are free use, some with OTRS permissions, no concern. - hahnchen 00:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have left a note on User:Indian Chronicles' talk page regarding this. Rahul Jain (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. I have created the image using cliparts available in powerpoint. If they using clipart is not in Public domain, then please remove it.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• You could create a new version using clip art from Openclipart, and the resulting image would be free use. - hahnchen 14:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have not read the article, but I can see at once a few problems:

• Uncited text. Examples: final sentence of "Material theory"; whole second paragraph of "Reincarnation and transmigration"; whole fourth paragraph of "Four states of existence"; possibly more.
• Several sections are presented in bullet-point format rather than in proper prose.

In addition, a couple of minor issues: citations should be at the end of blockquotes rather than at the beginning; check use of "p." instead of "pp." in page ranges, and inconsistent spacing after "p." or "pp."

Brianboulton (talk) 13:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I addressed most of the concerns you raised. I went through the whole article again to provide citations and references wherever they were required. Also, I reworked with the formatting of citation. I used the templates for consistency. I agree that several sections are bullet-point format, but I think those actually do require a list for better organization of information. Rahul Jain (talk) 11:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Conte di Cavour-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

These battleships had a curious history. Virtually inactive during World War I, one ship was sunk by a magazine explosion in harbor (cause unknown) and the other two were given the most extensive reconstructions done on a battleship by any nation between the wars. One was crippled by the British attack at Taranto and under repair for the rest of World War II. The other was lightly damaged by the longest-range hit ever made at the Battle of Calabria and was later transferred to the Soviet Union as war reparations. She was sunk in 1955 by long-buried German mines in Sevastopol harbor. The article has a MilHist A-class review last month and I've tweaked it a little in preparation for this nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Should "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates" be "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced with 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates". Otherwise the new Barbette armour is thinner than the old. ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Check alphabetization of References
• Gray or Gardiner & Gray?
• 277–77?
• FN37: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Janet

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Janet was the strongest and deadliest hurricane of the 1955 Atlantic hurricane season, wreaking havoc in areas of Central America in September of that year. I feel that this article meets the FA criteria because it is generally well-written, concise, and meticulously referenced. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 14:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: TheAustinMan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• FN2: formatting

• • What exactly is the problem with it? Since this hasn't been brought up on other FAs I'm not sure what the problem is. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Barbados Advocate or The Barbados Advocate? Use consistent titling

✓ Done - Added 'The' TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when

✓ Done - There was only one reference wikilink, which I removed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Check edition formatting for books

✓ Done - Since the Cite Book fill-out form inputs editions with just numbers and not extra 'ed.'s I've removed the aformentioned 'ed.'s

• Since when are the Milwaukee Sentinel and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published in Miami?

✓ Done - I had used the location of the actual published story, and not the newspaper, so I've changed that. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Look at newspaper citations in general - there are significant problems with them
  • Not sure what's 'significant.' I looked through them and they seem to have consistent style. 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

✓ Done - Removed retrieval dates for books hosted on Google. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

God of War: Betrayal

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a nice, short article and I believe it meets, or at the very least, is close to meeting the FA criteria. Any issues that there may be can be easily taken care of. JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Constitution of May 3, 1791

Nominator(s): _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything specific that has been pointed out in the last (August 2012) FAC has been fixed, and the article has received several other fixes since then. Bring it on. PS. Yadda yadda WPCUP participant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Piotrus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: Shouldn't the article start "… was a document designed to …" (i.e., reverse the order of the first and second sentences) so that we know what it is before we know when it was drafted. If not de rigeur then that would be my preference. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I thought about this, but moving this would actually require complex changes, at least in my vision, and those few words don't seem to be out of place - it's a bit like date of birth in biographies. I have no problem if you'd like to try to rewrite the lead, of course. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:RNieustająca.jpg: since this has an anonymous+70 tag, why does it also have a life+70 tag?
  • Rm'ed unneeded tag
• File:Ignacy_Potocki_2.JPG: source?
  • Fixed?
• File:Scipione_Piattoli.PNG: reproduction of 2D works doesn't grant new copyright - CC/GNU tag unneeded
• rm'ed unneeded tag
• File:Manuscript_of_the_Constitution_of_the_3rd_May_1791.PNG: source link appears broken
  • So it does. But link rot to sources is not a problem... or is it?
    • Would be helpful to be able to verify source information.
      • It would, but link rot is hard to deal with. Fortunately, the source page is in the archive.org: [4] but archive.org is terrible with pictures, and I cannot get any graphics to load. The only mirror I see cites Wikimedia Commons :) [5] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:POL_Przemysł_II_1295_COA.svg: should include licensing tag for original design as well as reconstruction
  • The original design is 13th century. I am not sure how to include the correct PD tag, could you help?
    • Given the age life+100 would work.
      • Ok, I think I fixed it now. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Constitution_of_May_3_in_Lithuanian_language.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Tag added. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Russula virescens

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Russula virescens is widely considered the best edible mushroom of the large genus Russula, and is popular in Europe in Asia. I have exhausted my sources and tweaked the prose to the point of diminishing returns, and think the article is ready for FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim Usual polished work, just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is especially popular in Europe and Asia. — ie the half of the world where it is easy to identify. A little sweeping, I think; perhaps change to Spain and China?
• Mushrooms have a high water content — for me, this doesn't quite work, going from the specific to the general. Not a deal-breaker if you want to keep it
• The green color of the cuticle — "color" is redundant here
• and in deposit — I don't know what this means
• its color tends to be more bluish-green — it tends to be more bluish-green
• Russula virescens has a low capacity (x2) — "limited" might be better
• Ref 14 needs publisher location

• Thanks for the comments; I've addressed your suggestions with this edit. Sasata (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm happy with your amendments, can't see anything else, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support. Great to see a quality article on such an important species.

• "First described in 1774 by Jacob Christian Schaeffer, the distribution of Russula virescens encompasses" This reads as if the distribution was first described by Schaeffer

• Reworded. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "around the center; the distinct pattern is called areolate." Seeing as areolate is an adjective, perhaps "called" isn't the right word?

• Reworded to "with patches of the same color dispersed radially around the center in an areolate pattern." Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say that the apparent controversy concerning its appearance in North America is not quite made clear in the lead; I got the impression it was clear that it's found there, it's just not precisely clear where, while the article body implies it may not be there at all.

• I've now made this more explicit in the lead. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Link cholesterol?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not seeing a lot of problems! J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Images seem OK (I don't really feel qualified to judge File:Stamp of Moldova 238.gif) but I'm finding myself slightly under-inspired by the photos; especially the lead, which seems to have been taken in less-than-ideal lighting. Although they're only small mushrooms, I'd be inclined to say that this or this capture the "ickyness" that Antonio Carluccio alludes to. If you're not convinced, stick with those we've got; I just imaging that choosing the right picture could make the difference as to whether someone stays to read the article or not! J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I like the lead image in that it nicely shows the areolate pattern, and a sunken cap center that is mentioned in the description. I've deliberately avoided using images from North America for reasons described above. What do you think about this, this, or this as alternate lead images? Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Choosing the right image out of all those is tricky. The depressed centre, which is a feature of the mushroom, is really only visible in the current one, which I think is the best really. this one is ok but the mushroom is a bit dirty, this one you can see the depression but it's a really odd shape. Tough call....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Happy to trust your judgement call. Two images in the infobox would also not be out of the question, if they show different features/show the mushroom at different stages of life? J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Another option to fit in an extra picture would be to convert the quote box in the edibility section to a block quote and add one of these images with a context-suitable caption like "Despite its "moldy" appearance, R. virescens is a good edible." How does that sound? Sasata (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• Since I have your attention, I'm thinking about replacing the spore image with this, as perhaps a picture of a young, not-yet green specimen is more useful than one of the spores. Comments? Sasata (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the quote-box move; something between a quotebox and a blockquote is Template:Quotation, which I rather like and would probably look good here. I agree that a young mushroom pic would be nice, but I'm also a big fan of spore pictures. Frankly, I think the least useful picture is the stamp, so if something's going to go... (An alternative to the stamp pic would be an external link to something like this, perhaps even using Template:External image. I also note that Moldova seems to have released a lot of stamps with mushrooms- I wonder if there's any literature out there about the meeting of mycology and philately? That'd make a fun article...) J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've implemented your suggestions with this edit, what do you think? I think there is enough literature to make a "Fungi on stamps" page; there's a series of articles by Maurice Moss in the journals Mycologist, Bulletin of the British Mycological Society and Transactions of the British Mycological Society Sasata (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done a little jiggling- revert if you like. I'm just worried that some would see the article as a little crowded; I'm sure there's a solution that hasn't occurred to us... J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Cwmhiraeth - Generally looks good. A few points that struck me:-
• I think you could wikilink polymath, clade, mycologist
• "In a molecular phylogenetic analysis of European Russula, R. virescens grouped together in a clade with R. mustelina;" - I don't think this sentence has a main verb.
• In the Description section, I favour conversion measurements that reflect the accuracy of the original. Thus "up to 15 cm" should convert to 6 rather than 5.9 in. This type of over-accurate conversion also occurs in the lead section.
• "...most of the gill is fused..." - I would say "most of the gills are fused" but would defer to your better knowledge of technical terms.
• "Another green-capped Russula is ... Other green russulas" - Some inconsistency in capitalisation and italics?
• "Despite its "moldy" appearance, R. virescens is a good edible." - This image caption needs attention.
• "...reactive brilliant blue and reactive blue R." - It is a bit unfortunate that this sentence ends in "R." as you have been using this abbreviation throughout for "Russula".

That's all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Banksia dentata

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is on par with the other 23 Banksia featured articles. I was expanding it for DYK and enjoyed writing about it so kept going. It benefitted from a thorough GA review by J Milburn. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim the usual nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest links for genetic, tessellated, monotypic, cladistic, diarrhea.

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Obovate" is linked twice in Description, and the " Flora of Australia " twice in Placement

repeated links delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• species of tree in the plant genus Banksia.—"plant" is redundant, no animal trees

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The cylindrical yellow flower spikes, known as inflorescences (x2) — I'm always wary of "known as", perhaps The cylindrical yellow inflorescences (flower spikes)

hmm, why? parenthesized and de-known... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Initially covered in reddish hair that disappears— the Cheshire Cat springs to mind. Fall off? Wear away?

aaah "wears away" is good.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• wavy (undulate) —odd to use an technical word to explain a common one, instead of the other way round

switched Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Newly-opened flower spikes smell like corn—does this mean sweetcorn? Perhaps a link would help

hmm, not thrilled on this one, seems a pretty obvious term? Is there any other corn...? Sweet corn seems the most appropriate destination I agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• 1.5–2 cm long, 0.4–0.8 cm high and 0.5–0.8 cm wide. —I don't like the conversion policy, but you have converted similar lengths later in the same paragraph. Also a switch between cm and mm for similar lengths seems inconsistent

only left the smallest ones in mm now. converting mm ones seems silly. all others now have conversions Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• as far south as Katherine Gorge and into Queensland, where it is found on the Cape York Peninsula to as far south as Cooktown—possible to avoid repeat of "as far south"?

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is the only Banksia species not endemic to Australia—any indication whether human agency was involved?

I am pretty well 100% sure all sources and authorities assume not, though none explicitly say this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• common blossom bat (Syconycteris australis) —for consistency, I'd either lose this binomial or add for the glider.

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• It was introduced into the United Kingdom in 1822. —"It" has become detached from its intended subject.

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose corn was pretty obvious, although in the UK it's often used more widely to refer to any cereal. Anyway, all done, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Suggest columns for footnotes

mitosed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Where is Brunsvigae?

it's Braunschweig.....i.e. Brunswick... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• FN8: doubled period

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Be consistent on when you specify country - you've got "London" and later "London, United Kingdom", "Paris, France" but just "Leipzig"...

aligned Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• How does Salkin fit with WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

It is a Thesis for a Masters of Science awarded in 1979. It contains a large amount of fieldwork which is invaluable. Some of the conclusions have been superceded and are expressed as his rather than general ones, if used. It was vetted at the time and has been used as a citation in other peer reviewed publications (it's a specialised field so doesn't appear much....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• FN27: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Support nicely written, I made one small tweak, otherwise I'm happy with the prose. ϢereSpielChequers 20:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

thx for the support - tweak looks good - can't believe I left that "not" there....hmmmm..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492 (as part of WP:Indonesia)

Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk; image check already conducted

• Support on prose and images. Looks fairly solid now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth - It reads well and I found it difficult to find anything much to quibble about.

• Now Supporting on the basis of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
• I favour conversion measurements that reflect the accuracy of the original. Thus "up to 13 cm" should convert to 5 rather than 5.1 in.

I must admit I was tempted to do that from the outset...rounded Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• In other parts of the article you have rounded conversions where appropriate but you have failed to provide some imperial measure equivalents in the last paragraph of the "Description" section.

Both are in mm and getting to ranges where measuring in inches looks a bit silly I thought Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The first sentence in "Taxonomy" has two "by"s which makes it a bit awkward. It is also too long and convoluted in my opinion.

trimme bit that was a bit general and obiovus anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Others from the same region ..." - Other what?

names - done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence starting "On Melville Island ..." in the Distribution section is also too long and convoluted.

I'd split it with a semicolon - do you think a period and proper split is better? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...in the transition from rainforest to open climate..." - Is "rainforest" a type of climate then?

oops, meant habitat. changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• The lead section states it is rarely cultivated but the Cultivation section does not.

removed offending sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That looks good. Changed my comments to support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Omak, Washington

Nominator(s): TBrandley (T • C • B) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Following some of my successful nominations, I present Omak, Washington. As the commercial center of Okanogan County, Washington, Omak is considered to be a minor tourist destination with a favorable climate. A small city with 4,880 residents as of 2011, the Omak Stampede is a well-known factor in the municipality. The article was recently classified as good and has obtained a through copy-edit. After extensive work, I believe that this entry satisfies the relevant criteria, unlike some of my previous nominations. Thank you very much, TBrandley (T • C • B) 15:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Oppose
• Lead
• I see that "city" is wikilinked in the very first sentence of the lead. It should not have been, so I clicked the link and was taken to City government in Washington (state). There I found Omak was a second-class city of the state. I was wondering whether the term "city" should be wikilinked at all in the lead.
  • Unlinked. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also, has it been mentioned somewhere in the body of the article that Omak is a second-class city in Washington state?
  • Added. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The community of 3.50 square miles (9.1 km2)" So, does the MoS suggest use of 0 (zero) after decimal? I am not sure. In terms of mathemetics, it should be 3.5 square miles, no need of zero (as in 9.1).
  • Fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "...and an urbanized population of 8,229.." Is "urbanized population" an usual expression in US English? I mean it is difficult to understand unless one clicks the piped link.
  • Yes, urbanized is a typical term in American English, according to most dictionaries. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
    • What I meant by this question was: whether the term "urbanized population" usually means the population of metropolitan or micropolitan area? And an additional question, the article United States urban area states that an urban area has a population of 50,000, but Omak does not. So, is it an urban area?--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Omak is an urban cluster, which is a small urban area with under 50,000 people, as described at List of United States urban areas. The term, "urbanized population", should refer to an urban area, while "metropolitan population" would refer to a metropolitan region. That seems to be the convention in American English. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• "... the largest member municipality of Okanogan County ". Do we need the word "member" here? "largest municipality in..." sounds sufficient to me.
  • Removed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "is the largest member municipality of Okanogan County and has grown significantly since the 1910 census, which recorded 520 residents". So do you mean biggest in size, or, most populous by the term "largest"?
  • Clarified. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Omak, along with its twin city of Okanogan, forms the commercial center of Greater Omak.". So Omak plus Okanogan equals the commercial center of another entity called Greater Omak. I think a wikilink to Greater Omak won't be bad here, as it seems from reading that Omak, Okanogan and some other places constitute Greater Omak.
  • I'm planning on creating an article for Greater Omak, but for now, there is no link available. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Situated on Okanogan River, the site was first inhabited by Native Americans before the arrival of the first permanent white settlers in 1907." Do we need the first "first" in this sentence? I am not sure.
  • Removed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• History
• In origin subsection, the whole first paragraph has one citation superscript at the end. Does that source provide supporting reference for all the data presented in the first paragraph?
  • Yes, it is a relatively large source. It was rather interesting to read. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Omak declined during portions of the 1900s, when fruit prices raised, land was lost and major employers were shut down. " Is 1900 a typo? Because it came into being in 1907.
  • Clarified. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "However, employees bought the mill for $45,000,000 and renamed it Omak Wood Products, in an attempt to save their jobs" Which year?
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Why does the history (Growth subsection) has such a detailed description of the history of the saw mill? I understand saw mills were the largest manufacturing job employer in the city. Even then, such detailed financial history of the mill seems unnecessary in the city article (especially the later year multiple ownership changes, price etc). I think this description should be ruthlessly cut down. Other reviewers' opinion can be sought.
  • I'm not sure about this one yet. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That's ok, you can await other reviewers' comment. Just curious, what is your rationale behind detailing the factory's history in two good-sized paragraphs in an article that deals with the city?
• While the history section gives apparently unneeded details about the factory, it lacks any other significant events after 1950s (well, I don't know if there was any significant event; if there are, those should be mentioned).
  • There were not any significant events which occurred after, expect the reopening of the mills in 2013. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review! TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Almost all points are addressed; except the factory history one (which can await for now). I will try to read rest of the article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Geography

• "The Okanogan River, coming out of the town of Riverside, defines the northeastern border of the city", In the map provided, the river is not visible in the northeastern boundary of the city, rather goes through the center almost, and also south-ish.
  • Fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I doubt a "central border" can be formed (borders are around something, not central) Guess it needs more tweak. Also, the river can be on the northeast of the town (I don't know), just that it is not shown in the map. So, I think you should verify from the source.
      • Fair enough, fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "However, the average elevation is 843 miles (1,357 km) above sea level" Typo :)
  • Fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• I think, Köppen climate classification values are usually italicised.
  • Added. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Average monthly participation ranges from about 40 inches (1,000 mm) in August to 1.66 °F (−16.86 °C) in December" again, typo.
  • Fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• " the city of Wenatchee is 5 °F (−15 °C) cooler on average than Omak" There is something wrong in this conversion.
  • Fixed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• The text says "Average monthly participation ranges from about 40 inches (1,000 mm) in August" but the table of climate says precipitation in August is 0.49 inches.
  • Addressed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also, in the climate table, in winter months, snowfall is more than precipitation. Now, I have no background knowledge of measurement of precipitation, so please pardon me if I say something wrong. AFAIK, precipitation includes rain, snow, sleet etc. So, if precipitation includes snow, how can snow be more than total precipitation? Or, is it so that snowfall amount is converted to water equivalent and then precipitation calculated (snow fall, if converted to water equivalent, the value would be less)
  • I'm not exactly sure, but that's what I would presume. The source maintains equalization, it probably would be a conversion. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Also, what are the seasons (and which months)? Does the city have fall or spring?
  • There is no reliable information on that, sorry. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

*"Churches are common in this area.". Sort of vague statement. Common in the city? In the whole region? Or, in the downtown? And how many is really common?

• • Clarified. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "... Nancy Lemons stated the cityscape is generally sizable" Not understanding what she means by "generally sizeable"? Does that mean, the cityscape of significant size?
  • Clarified. TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Still somewhat vague. Can a "cityscape" be of significant size? A city can be of some size. And what is exactly meant by that? (the size of the city already mentioned in topography; does the author compare the city to other cities?)
      • Attempted to clarify. TBrandley (T • C • B) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! TBrandley (T • C • B) 05:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I may have missed. Have you mentioned the extent of Omak "urban area"? What are the constituents of the urban area besides the city proper? And what is the size? The population density falls from 545 in the city proper to 1.7 per sq mile in the urbanized area, so the whole urban area must be pretty big.
  • "Its 4.73-square-mile (12.3 km2) urban cluster includes the city of Okanogan" in geography and "The city had an urbanized population of 8,229, with 1.737 inhabitants per square mile (0.7 /km2) and 19.94 percent of the county's residents" makes note. I'll leave the rest for a separate article to provide (such as Demographics of Omak, Washington) and I am working an article for the urbanized Greater Omak. TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Demographics

• "...counted 2,500 residents, making it the largest member municipality in Okanogan County". Again, it's the population, not size/area. So, "most populous", not "largest".
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• "...Subsequent census counts documented a significant increase to 4,000 residents before a population boom at the 1980 census. However, after the boom, the population persistently increased..." But the table shows that in 1980 census, population actually decreased. So, how can it be a population boom?
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• " Between 1990 and 2000, the city's population grew by 2.7 percent, while between 2000 and 2010, the population increased by 14.7 percent" Any reason for such a major growth during 2000-2010?
  • No. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The city is made up of 2,540 women and 2,305 men, giving it a gender balance close to national averages" Please state the national average.
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The last complete census in 2000 found..." What is a "complete census"? The 2010 census is not completed yet?
  • Data from the 2010 United States Census was not released. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• "A 2011 population estimate released by the United States Census Bureau recorded 4,881 residents of the city" Perhaps not needed. You have an official figure from 2010 census, and it does not differ significantly.
  • Removed there. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Economy

• "The city's economy is experiencing significant growth, according to the County of Okanogan" As of when?
  • Done. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Its economy is relied on the primary industries of agriculture and forestry" Soon, " Infrastructure services and retail trades were also major industries in the community" All are major? If really so, would be nice to have some stats.
• "About 425 private firms employed a total of 3,332 workers in local industries at this time" What is meant by local industries? Manufacture, retail, infrastructure -- all included?
  • Clarified. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• "As of 2010, there are 1,859 people employed in Omak." but just in the earlier paragraph, "About 425 private firms employed a total of 3,332 workers in local industries at this time". So, firms employed more than total people employed? Or, is the 1,859 number reflects those that actually reside within the municipal (or, urban) limits of Omak?
  • The previous paragraph was from "the late 1990s and early 2000s", so the time is slightly different. Thus, addressed. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Well, now we have " The largest occupation were office and sale services, comprising approximately 30 percent of the city's total employees, followed by business occupations, with 26.5 percent of the employees in the city" But in the preceding paragraph, Infrastructure services and retail trades, and agriculture and forestry were emphasized. This whole area needs to be straightened out. It may be that the number of employees in a certain industry is more, but the economical output of another industry is more.
  • The 2010 census classifies businesses and industries under different categories, and the content is based on that data. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Well, the very next sentence, "Public services and retail trade defined the highest employed industries" Very soon, "Omak's economy is heavily reliant on tourism".
  • They both are significant aspects of its economy, but I've attempted to clarify somewhat. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I read many sections of the article, and found many flaws (for example, in the climate section). I listed those, and majority of those were adequately addressed. However, such high incidence of minor flaws makes me think whether this article is at all ready for FAC. Now, in economy section also I find some discrepancies, and complexity. So, after reading thus far, I am opposing this FA candidacy, mainly due to the lack of criterion 1a, that is, the artricle is not well-written. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Are there any specific sections that require work? TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, I did not read beyond Economy. As I pointed out above, I found a lot of minor mistakes in the article so far. Yes, majority of those were corrected, but going by the trend, it seems that following sections might also have such many minor mistakes, or, complexities. I have seen before that often FACs are opposed even for a few mistakes in one section. But that is done by reviewers who have mastery over the language. I do not have professional level expertise on English, so I did not oppose in the beginning, but went on reading and pointing out faults. Although they are not major faults, such a large number of minor faults make the article in need of copy edit.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus (film)

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this again for featured article because the thing that laid its child in my chest cavity told me to. I am told it read the article on Prometheus and decided I would make a fertile breeding ground for a hyper efficient article editing machine that bleeds text. On a personal level I have been working on the article for several months, taking it from a relative bare space to what is today: a thorough document on the film Prometheus that covers every major topic on an interesting and long in development project by the master Ridley Scott. I have been helped to this end by many other impregnated users including but not limited to User:IllaZilla, User:Polisher of Cobwebs and User:Flax5 plus a thorough copy edit by User:Baffle gab1978 to bring it to the shining standard of alien infestation that it is today. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments reading through now.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC) on prose and comprehensiveness - I've seen this develop over time and I think it fulfils criteria now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A mutated Fifield attacks the Prometheus's hangar bay and kills several crew members before he is killed. - generally try to avoid repeating words, I was musing on changing one of these to "dispatch", "murder" or some other verb. I'd also add the adjective "monstrous" to Fifield here to convey that he's so big and scary in this bit.....

I was musing in the plot section on one key point to add - before David infects Holloway with the liquid he asks him how far he'd be prepared to go (?) - in my mind this was clarifying that somehow David feels Holloway would acquiesce in the name of knowledge (??) - obviously it's not spelt out but it adds a layer of ambiguity as by not mentioning it maybe gives the wrong impression of David's motives (??)

The plot is possibly too economical with words (agree it is very tight, which is a good thing overall) - I'd maybe mention the visuals of the opening being in a rocky desolate place next to a huge waterfall, and the planet they land on as mountainous and barren - the plot as is gives nothing for the reader to visualise at all.

The central prominent theme concerns the Titan Prometheus.. - I don't think we need both adjectives here....

Other than these nitpicks, looking pretty polished and promotable prose- and comprehensiveness-wise.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I have made some minor changes to attempt to address these issues as seen here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Casliber! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Support with comments

An exhaustive account which looks as if it fulfills the criteria. I have a few questions around the referencing:

Pre-production

• Why do you use reference [93] consecutively?

Visual effects

• It is usual to finish a paragraph with an inline citation?
  • Ah, I see you have fixed this

Critical reception

• Paragraphs should finish with a cite "Reviews frequently praised both the film's visual aesthetic and design, and Fassbender's performance as the android David received almost universal acclaim. However the plot drew a mixed response from critics, who criticized plot elements that remained unresolved or were predictable, tempered by appreciation for the action and horror set-pieces." -- this paragraph could do with a reference at the end of the paragraph. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see any prose issues upon my first read, but I will take another spin over the next few days. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I addressed your first issue here but I'm a little unclear on the 2nd and 3rd problem. Do you mean that the paragraph ends without a cite directly afterwards like here (attempt to address issue 2)? If so, the third issue re: the critical reception, the final sentence is a brief summary of the the overall content of that section, but is not itself sourced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I added a source to the last paragraph. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Cassianto! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support amazing article on a divisive movie (that I still liked). Wonder if Alien (1979 film) can get there some day. igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Igordebraga! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent quality film article, with clear evidence of going the extra mile to ensure an article of the very highest quality. --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you TaerkastUA! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just a note here that the article has been moved to Prometheus (2012 film). Jafeluv (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Norman Cob

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This is another French draft horse breed, but one with a slightly happier history, as after the event of mechanization it found another use besides being bred for the meat market. Another collaboration between myself and User:Tsaag Valren, the wonderful French editor who took this article to featured status on the French WP, with additional help from numerous others. I look forward to your comments! (Oh, and this is a WikiCup article.) Dana boomer (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Dana boomer. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (Wikimanche CC 3.0, own work, PD-age). Sources and authors provided.

• File:RaceNormande.jpg - added US-tag, OK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you, GermanJoe! Your image expertise is, as always, much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I did the GA review for this. At the time I thought it also met the FA criteria, and having reviewed the subsequent fairly minor changes, I'm happy to support this now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Jim! Your GA review definitely helped in the last push to FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - looks well-written and comprehensive at first read, just some minor issues and questions:

• wiki-links => do you link once in lead and once more in main text, or only once? Some terms are linked twice ("Thoroughbred", the breed colors, ...), some only in lead ("breed", "conformation", "Selle Francais", ...). It would be more consistent to use one style throughout.

• Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• history sub-headers => "20th century" overlaps with the next section "1950 - 2000"

• Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This stud and the [Haras du Pin] ..." - red-link?

• Done, and tweaked the formatting of this sentence in general a bit. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• 20th century "The arrival of automobiles coincided with a split in the breed." => Why are automobiles mentioned here? Is there any causal connection?

• GermanJoe, in general, the arrival of the internal combustion engine meant that horses were often at the losing end of the deal; in this context, they were not needed as carriage horses any more, so the body type split between the horses still useful for riding (lighter, more agile) and horse still suitable for farm work (heavier, slower). I'll let Dana address the issue further, but that's the connection. --Montanabw

• Added a bit to clarify that an increase in cars meant a decrease in carriage horses. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "[At this point], a distinction ..." - redundant in a chronological text.

• Removed. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Laurens St. Martin" - notable enough for a red-link?

• I don't think so? He doesn't have an article on the French WP, and I haven't seen any notable treatment of him in the sources to which I have access. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• 2000 and today "There are fairs held for the breed at Lessay and Gavray, in [la Manche]." => the link points to "la Manche" aka the English Channel. Should it point to "Manche" (the department)?

• Yes, it would be correct to link it there. However, it doesn't need to be linked, given that Manche is already linked a paragraph up. My mistake. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Uses ""Some Norman Cobs are bred for the meat market ..." => any numbers available for meat usage vs. other usages? From the article i get the impression, meat usage is rare, but that remains a bit vague.

• I haven't seen any numbers, but I've dropped a note to the French user who has worked on this article with me, to see if any of her sources can give us more specifics. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• citation => the article uses "p." for page ranges, not "pp." (?).

• Done, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Notes and References => check ISBN-formatting, all should be ISBN13 hyphenated - http://pcn.loc.gov/isbncnvt.html is a good tool for ISBN conversions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't seen the discussion that requires ISBNs to be ISBN13 hyphenated. Could you please point it out to me? Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the additional comments. I believe I have replied to everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• ISBNs are detailed at WP:ISBN, which strangely is not a policy or a guideline (my bad, thought it was one). As the text mentions, ISBN13 is standard since 2007. I'll do another final read before supporting. GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support after another readthrough, nice work. Comprehensive (as far as a layman can tell) and well-sourced. I formatted the remaining ISBNs, aside from using the newest standard it just looks a bit cleaner that way. GermanJoe (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for the review and support, GermanJoe! Thanks also for changing the ISBNs - I really was going to change them, I just hadn't had a chance to yet... Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I've probably edited too much on this article to be a neutral reviewer, though I didn't do much to help the GA/FA run. But it is nicely done and support from Wikiproject Equine! Montanabw^(talk) 15:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• L'Harmattan or Éditions L'Harmattan?

• WorldCat has both: the first book and the second book. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Syndicat national des éleveurs et utilisateurs de chevaux Cob Normand" or "Syndicat National des Éleveurs et Utilisateurs de chevaux Cob Normand"?

• The first. I think I've standardized this. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Cheval or Cheval magazine?

• That one might be two different magazines, cheval is French for "horse" and a quick web search turned up multiple horsey publications in French titled Cheval - whatever. No URL for the '"Cheval one. Hmm...Dana? Is this Le Cheval, Journal du Cheval,... something else? --Montanabw

• No, they're supposed to both be Cheval magazine. I just missed a word. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is "Cheval magazine" --Tsaag Valren (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• FN37: italicization, capitalization

• I think I fixed that one, but let us know if I failed to do so. The article title is copied precisely as written at the URL, the citeweb template is probably why the publication title isn't italicized, I tried switching it to "work" but it still didn't italicize. I'll let Dana see if there is anything else to be done, but if you have any thoughts here, i'm sure we are both willing to see what we can do. --Montanabw

• I had used the wrong cite template. It should now be fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• France Agricole Éditions or Editions? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• The former. I think I have now standardized this. Thank you for the review, Nikki! Dana boomer (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• France Agricole éditions (we say "les éditions de la France agricole", too) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I read through the article and didn't spot any problems. Overall, the FA criteria appear to be met comfortably. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Giants! Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Lynch (politician)

Nominator(s): Designate (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Fresh out of his campaign for U.S. Senate, this is U.S. Representative Stephen Lynch of South Boston. He represents a shrinking wing of Massachusetts state politics, the socially conservative fiscal-liberal labor voters. He may not have accomplished much as a Congressman, but his career story is a bit more interesting than the mainstream progressive Democrats he serves with. I don't know what's next for this guy but his biography should be of interest to anyone with a passing interest in American politics, so I hope we can make this a featured article. —Designate (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Don't italicize quotes
• Don't use bare URLs as citations
• Dead link
• FN18: page?
• Boston Herald or The Boston Herald? New York Times or The New York Times? Be consistent
• When using Washington as location, specify DC
• FN61: formatting
• Be consistent in what is wikilinked when. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Martha Logan

Nominator(s): Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. It has been a GA for a number of years and I feel that article has depth and breadth of coverage, but I would appreciate feedback or comments on things that need to be fixed. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced that this article is ready for FA status.

• I find the heavy use of blockquotes, especially for such small passages of text, slightly problematic. They make the article seem choppy and incomplete, which is not helped by the short paragraphs (in one instance, less than a line.)
• The non-free images, other than the lead image, are adding little, and really should be removed. Yes, the scenes are important and should be discussed in the article, but that does not mean images are required. Non-free images should be used only if their inclusion adds significantly to the article. You mention this "opening scene" plenty, but never actually say what's in it until right at the end- a non-free image can't be used as a substitute for actually saying something that's important.
• The "Characterization" section feels very limited. I'm not really sure I have an idea of who the character is after reading it.
• In places, the writing isn't quite up to scratch; "on the Suvarov's motorcade" (I assume you mean "on the Suvarov family's motorcade", in which case it would be "on the Suvarovs' motorcade"), "After Jack Bauer fails to obtain a confession from Logan,[3] she screams in public that Logan is a murderer during Palmer's funeral." (Which Logan's which?), "Her marriage to President Logan has been described as "one of the highlights of this year."[6]" (Television highlights? 24 highlights? Highlights from a reviewer's life?), "Smart was also nominated for an Emmy for her performance, Best Supporting Actress in a Drama Category, which she lost to Blythe Danner." (This doesn't make sense.)
• Category:Fictional characters based on real people? A subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by year of introduction?
• Sourcing problems:
  • Newspaper names should be italicised. Linking to our articles on the newspapers also wouldn't hurt, but isn't mandatory.
  • You've got inconsistent date formatting.
  • Can we have a page number for the West Australian source? I assume that's a newspaper.
  • Is http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2085 really the best source you have on Mitchell?
  • Ideally, citations should refer to organisations/publications, rather than just websites.
  • The article's based mostly on primary sources, with a few (mostly minor) newspaper articles thrown in. Is this really all there is? There seem to be a good few popular and scholarly books on 24; do these have anything to say about the character? A clumsy Google Search suggests that they may, and there will be more books not archived by Google Books.
    • Television Dramatic Dialogue : A Sociolinguistic Study, for instance, uses discussion of Martha on page 54 before she has been seen as an example of a particular kind of dialogue, but also identifies the role of this dialogue in establishing the role and personality of Martha. This may be worth including- if nothing else, a cite to a scholarly book published by OUP helps legitimate the character as a subject worthy of discussion.
    • Jack Bauer for President: Terrorism and Politics in 24 contains an article by Paul Lytle (who seems to have a few publications in this area) which contains a couple of paragraphs of analysis of Logan's espionage-like activities.
  • This is hardly stuff that's going to demand an article rewrite, but I suggest it may be indicative that there's a lot more out there, in terms of high-quality sources.

For me, this article's falling a good way short of the FA benchmark, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose Half the references are to episodes of 24. This means that you are mainly using primary sources, and that you are doing a significant amount of original research as the entire Characterization section is based on your individual interpretation of the show.122.172.22.133 (talk) 03:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree that using primary sources constitutes original research. The entire characterisation section came from FOX. Other similar fictional articles which are featured (I.E. Michael Tritter) use the respective TV show as a source of information for what happened to the character. I agree more third party sources are ideal, but disagree with your comments here. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 20:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations

Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... because I think it meets the criteria. The title of the article sounds like a dull historical event, but the Monroe Doctrine Centennial half dollar is anything but. It was part of a scheme by Hollywood in the early 1920s, when there were such scandals as the accusations against Fatty Arbuckle, to get good publicity by having a historical fair and issuing a coin for it. The expo was not noticeably successful, but as one source points out, if it was in anyway responsible for Hollywood's later success, then it and the coin were very successful indeed.Wehwalt (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Image review: All seem fine. I'm somewhat concerned about the coin images as there is no EXIF data and they are quite small, but considering the age of the upload the self tag is possibly correct (in other words, AGF). They could use proper description boxes though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Bobby131313 did not always provide proper license tags, and may have deleted the EXIF data for security reasons. However, we'd be a lot worse off without his coin images, and I queried the license matter on MCQ a while back and people felt that the act of uploading was intending to have them be used. I'll look at the image boxes, thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, nice to hear. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I've done it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Long quote in first para of Preparation should be blockquoted
• Don't include quote-terminal ellipses
• Worldcat and Google both say publisher for Slabaugh is Western, not Whitman. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

For the second edition? He revised it in 1975.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

On the blockquote, as another blockquote follows quickly on, I think it better to keep this one in normal formatting. I have no great preference on the ellipse, but I recall a question being raised by a reviewer or delegate (I cannot recall which) when I cut off in the middle of a sentence in a quote without one. Perhaps reviewers on this article could give me their views on that. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

An ellipse placed at the end of a sentence is signalling that "this is incomplete". Presumably you have used all of the source that is necessary, so that your "quote" is not incomplete. For this reason I would drop the ellipse here. (A fuller review of the article is under way) Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – a few exceedingly minor comments.

• Info-box
  • "Conjoined heads of former presidents" – If "conjoined" in this context is a recognised numismatic term for parallel profiles, then fair enough, but if it isn't I'm bound to say it conjures up visions of what we used to call Siamese twins.

Yes, it is the proper term. See here for an example.

• Background
  • "British Foreign Minister George Canning" – as "Foreign Minister" isn't a job title (Canning's title was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs – to which you very properly link) I don't think it should be capitalised: "foreign minister" seems more suitable here.
  • "Monroe's Secretary of State" – oughtn't "Secretary of State" to be blue linked?
• Inception
  • "the bill was enacted on January 24, 1923" – was the majority large or small? You might like to add it, if you think it of interest. Merely a thought.

It is not mentioned. These things generally passed by unanimous consent or voice vote. They were not considered worth the floor time of a recorded vote, I suspect.

• • "the reason ocean currents were shown were" – "the reason ocean currents were shown was", surely?
• Distribution and collecting
  • "fifty cents, though fairgoers could purchase a coin for $1" – excuse an Englishman's ignorance, but I'd have thought that "fifty cents" would go with "a dollar" or alternatively "50c" with "$1". But what do I know?

Enough to give a seminar, given the sheer number of coin articles you and Brian have reviewed.

• Layout
  • On the particular question of block-quotes, I confess I tend to scatter them round liberally when I'm editing articles: I think it breaks up great slabs of text. But this is a concise article, and I take Wehwalt's point about having too many in succession here. I have no views on the ellipses.

It continues to astonish me how Wehwalt manages to make articles on numismatics so fascinating, not to say entertaining; I laughed aloud at the Swiatek and Breen quotation. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and is a worthy addition to Wikipedia's authoritative coverage of coinage. – Tim riley (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks on that, and for the review. If I haven't commented, I've made changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And the answer is: cherry picking. There are commemorative issues in which nothing of note happened, and collectors were not outraged. I avoid those.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Scandalous dereliction! Tim riley (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to support: A few points, only the first of which is really significant:

• It should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead that the centennial in question is that of the Monroe Doctrine. Otherwise, many readers will wonder what is the relevance of the Monroe and Adams portraits.
• From my knowledge of general ignorance, I advice that the first mention of Latin America be linked.
• I take it that there were no consequences from Beck's accusation of design plagiarism?

Apparently not, other than in the historical view of later coin books. He was the first choice to do the Oregon Trail piece, three years later. Fortunately he was too busy, as the Frasers' design is masterful.

Short and entertaining; I expect to have no problem adding my support. Brianboulton (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, both for the kind words and for the review. I've implemented the suggestions you've made.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Duly upgraded Brianboulton (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you again. I've been spending some time at sea reading a book about the token coinage of 1787-1816, in which your revered ancestor played a significant part and shall work on his article a bit on my return.

Yes, ol' Matt spread himself about a bit. As to "ancestor", I'd like to think I was descended from the genius, but I think my late dad only claimed a family connection. I don't know what evidence he had. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Ellison

Nominator(s): Shudde ^talk 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Ellison was a highly influential figure in late 19th century New Zealand rugby union, and was also one of the first Māori to be admitted to the Bar. He played with the New Zealand Native Football team that toured Australia and the British Isles in 1888–89, and later captained New Zealand on their tour of Australia in 1893. For someone who died so young he achieved a lot, and has had a lasting legacy on New Zealand society, but on sport in particular. I believe the article is as comprehensive a coverage of his life—and especially his endeavours and influence on rugby—as any available. The page has met the Good Article criteria, and been through a peer review. I welcome comments and questions. - Shudde ^talk 10:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments: A well-researched article on an interesting person, but I have a few reservations. There are some sloppy features such as the references not being in numerical order throughout, and a few places where the prose is a little rough. The article also seems heavy on background, such as the scrum, and light on details of Ellison's actual life and achievements. His presumably pioneering career as a barrister is glossed over in a couple of sentences. I don't really get a sense of the man himself, or why he was so highly regarded in rugby. I've left quite a long list of points, but I think this one needs a little more work on top of these as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll addressed some, and will try and address them all, but may take another day or so. Regarding the scrum (or wing-forward), I tried to find a balance between discussing the topic in enough detail for it to not leave more questions than it answers, and not going into excessive detail—especially regarding the negative influence the position had on the relationship between the NZ and Home Nations rugby authorities. It would be good if there was a stand-alone article about the position, but there isn't, although I'd like to create one eventually (hopefully). It was a central part of NZ play for nearly 40 years, but without Ellison that would probably not be true. I'd like to have more information on his law career and political views, however nearly all sources only mention those topics in passing. [6] has more on this than all other sources combined. I'm not sure his law career was particularly notable, other than him being one of the first Maori admitted to the bar; if he was pakeha it probably wouldn't be considered notable at all. Anyway hope this at least partially addresses those points. - Shudde ^talk 04:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Watch out for using "Ellison" too much, when a pronoun could be used instead.
• "He led the first New Zealand representative rugby team organised by the New Zealand Rugby Football Union (NZRFU) on their 1893 tour of Australia, and played in the 1888–1889 New Zealand Native football team on their epic 107 match tour, and scored 113 points, and 43 tries with the side": Long sentence, with a few too many ands.
  • I've tried to fix this. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "in 1882 Ellison was awarded a scholarship to attend the famous Māori secondary school Te Aute College in the Hawke's Bay. He had been introduced to rugby by a cousin at Otakou, and participated in the sport after starting at Te Aute College": The order seems a bit off here. We go school, rugby, then back to school. Could these be merged somehow?
  • I have reorganised this section, and added a quote from Ellison re his first game of football. - Shudde ^talk 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "when they won the Hawke's Bay senior club championship.[3][4][5][1]": The order of the refs needs sorting here. And four refs in a row looks quite ugly.
  • I've sorted the order out of all the refs, but still have to sort the fact there are so many in a row. I'll find a fix for this. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 11:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "After moving to Wellington, he joined the Poneke Football Club in 1885": Don't start a paragraph with "he" as the subject. It should be "Ellison".
  • Done. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "After moving to Wellington, he joined the Poneke Football Club in 1885. The Poneke team played junior club…": Close repetition of Poneke; could be re-worded to avoid this.
  • Done. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Poneke won the Wellington club championship in 1986, and won again the next three years": I'm assuming 1986 is a typo.
  • Yes. Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• How did he perform at school rugby? He suddenly seems catapulted to the Wellington team. And then how did he perform for Wellington, which would have been quite a step up, I imagine.
  • There is no more information on his performance for the school team, but that they won the Hawke's Bay club championship means that they must have been a very strong side. I'm not sure if the step up from club to provincial was as large as it would be today, however Poneke were clearly a very good side if they were unbeaten one season, and then won the club championship immediately after promotion to senior rugby. So he had 3-4 season playing for very successful club sides before playing provincially. I've tried to find more on his performances for Wellington, and I'll keep looking. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The best I've found regarding his time at Te Aute so far is Greg Ryan describing his career there as "distinguished" - Shudde ^talk 11:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Why did he stop playing for Wellington in 1892?
  • I have not found anything on why; it's probably not particularly unusual to retire younger than today, especially considering the sport was amateur, and travel times for provincial games was longer. I haven't found anything to suggest he stopped playing because of injury, his professional career, or family. He did continue to be involved as a coach and administrator. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of "Early life" seems to have a few too many short sentences.
  • I've started to address this, but will try and play with the paragraph some more. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hopefully more acceptable now. - Shudde ^talk 10:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "In early 1888 Joe Warbrick was attempting to organise a private party": Why not just "…Warbrick attempted to organise…"? Or if he succeeded, why not just "organised"?
  • I have reworded this. I've tried to make it clear that he was attempted to organise a tour of Maori players. He ended up recruiting non-Maori as well because of concerns that the squad wouldn't be very strong. It is beyond the scope of the article, but hopefully it reads better now. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I added a note on this that will hopefully this for anyone that is curious. - Shudde ^talk 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "They then toured Great Britain, Australia, and finally New Zealand again—with the trip lasting 14 months": Better to have just "–the trip lasted 14 months".
  • Changed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "and played at least 83 of the team's 107 matches; including a minimum of 58 in Britain.": Why the uncertainty over the number of games he played? I think the reader may want to know. What about a note?
  • I've added a note. The most comprehensive information on the tour is in the Greg Ryan book "Forerunners of the All Blacks" - teams listings for all the matches haven't been discovered/may not exist, so the numbers are a minimum. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "with Ellison playing in the forwards.[11][10]": Try to avoid the noun plus -ing construction. And make sure the refs are in numerical order.
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Second paragraphs of "New Zealand Native football team": A few too many instances of "the natives" rather than a pronoun or synonym.
  • Addressed. - Shudde ^talk 10:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The Natives scored four tries in the half; with their third try scored by Ellison after a counter-attack by George Williams": This sentence does not quite make sense using a semi-colon. And "their third try was scored by…" would be better.
  • Changed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Writing after the tour, Ellison said of the incident—".. gross as these errors were": Why the dash, and I think the ellipsis has gone a little wrong.
  • I removed the dash and ellipsis. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• How was the team received by critics and the public? Were the games popular? Did critics consider the team to be a good one? Were the matches full internationals? Were the opposition full strength?
  • I will add some information on all of this. I think the team were generally well received, the incident where several players left the field against England seemed to overshadow other aspects of it. Whether the matches are full internationals is decided by the union of the respective sides—so for example the Wales Rugby Union get to decide whether to award Test caps to the Welsh players. The Natives were not an international side, and would not have been awarded caps, although their opposition may have (it's a weird rule in rugby, even today the Maori All Blacks won't be awarded Test caps, but sometimes their opposition will). I am not 100% sure either way whether the English, Irish and Welsh were awarded international caps for the game, but from what I have read they were treated like full internationals in all other respects. - Shudde ^talk
  • I've expanded on this. It's almost certain that the three teams awarded caps to their players ([7] and List of Wales national rugby union players offers evidence). The Natives would not have been awarded caps, allblacks.com has a very good archive of past players and past matches, and the Natives would be included there had Test caps been awarded. - Shudde ^talk 11:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "and 10 in New Zealand.[19][1]": Ref order.
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "amply penalize off-side interferences of opponents bent on spoiling my passes ...".[23]": Something off with the punctuation here.
  • I double checked the quote, and it is transcribed exactly from the source. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I actually found another source for this quote (McLean, 1987, p 20.), and it is consistent with the Elliott transcription. - Shudde ^talk 04:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The use of a wing-forward did provoke controversy": Why not just "provoked"?
  • Fixed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The all black uniform would become famous as that of New Zealand representative sides, and eventually give them their name—All Blacks": The name is as famous as the side? I think this needs sourcing a little better. And the quotes source suggests that this is only one possible explanation of the origin of the name.
  • I'll reword this, but have not yet. A consensus has emerged over the last 15-20 years that the name "All Blacks" derives from the colour of their playing strip, not a newspaper misspelling of "all backs" as was widely believed in the past. I can find more sources for this, but may take a little longer to address than the other issues here. - Shudde ^talk 10:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The tour was the end of Ellison's participation in the sport as a player": Why?
  • See above. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "this was in 1898—nearly a century before rugby relinquished its amateur status": If we are trying to cast him as an ahead-of-his-time pioneer, perhaps the origins of rugby league should not be forgotten! I think we are reaching here.
  • That wasn't the intention; I reworded it to make it more explicit. He was specifically proposing that players be compensated on long tours—so not "broken time" payments or anything like professionalism. It was probably more of a middle ground between broken time payments and strict amateurism. Terry McLean spent a few pages talking about it in New Zealand Rugby Legends, and I can probably expand on it to make it clear that he wasn't talking about domestic tours, only international ones if need be. Players and administrators were still arguing that long tours required to large a financial sacrifice on behalf of the players in the 1980s (when McLean was writing), and that their per diem was not adequate for overseas tours. I didn't want to dwell on it to long, because the proposal wasn't successful. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The book was pioneering, and is a classic of rugby literature.[8][4][32]": Says who? And again ref order.
  • Fixed the ref order, will adding quotes from the sources in the ref be adequate here? - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I've included quotes from the sources in the footnotes—let me know if this is acceptable. - Shudde ^talk 03:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Outside of his sporting endeavours": Makes it sound like he played many sports successfully, but we don't read of these.
  • That was a mistake, corrected now. - Shudde ^talk 03:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "and is believed to be one of the first Māori admitted to the bar.": Believed by who?
  • Changed. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "several times against Tame Parata,": Who?
  • Wiki-linked. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "working for government consideration of Ngāi Tahu land claims": Of what? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wiki-linked to Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements which I hope will be satisfactory. This is an aspect of his life that I would like to know more about, but as I mentioned above, sources are lacking. - Shudde ^talk 02:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A few more: Nearly there, I think. I've done some copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything you don't like or which I have messed up. Just a few last points. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "He married his wife Ethel May Howell in 1899—with whom he had three children—before his death from tuberculosis in 1904": Do we need his marriage in the lead? And there is no need for "before": he could hardly marry after his marriage! A new sentence would work better if you want to keep his wife here.
  • I've tried something. See what you think. - Shudde ^talk 05:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "In early 1888 Joe Warbrick was attempting to organise a private party": I still think this would be better as "Warbrick attempted to organise..."
  • Done. - Shudde ^talk 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Be consistent in which numbers are given in words and which in figures.
  • I was always taught to use figures for large numbers and words for smaller ones. I've gone through and used a cut-off of 12 before I start using figures. Hope this is ok. - Shudde ^talk 03:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "this would increase the amount of time the half-back would have in possession before their opposite could tackle them": A little ambiguous, perhaps, for non-sports readers. Maybe "in possession of the ball..."?
  • Good suggestion. Done. - Shudde ^talk 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The book was pioneering, and is a classic of rugby literature...": Better to say within the text "according to X" rather than adding a note.
  • I've done this. - Shudde ^talk 04:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• Is the "All Black" part finalised yet?
  • Yes , done now. I'm pretty happy with the source I used, it supports the assertion that the name is derived from the playing colours. I've added an additional source however. - Shudde ^talk 03:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• The only thing obviously missing for me is some kind of critical summary of his career: other than his gravestone, there are no opinions of him as a player, either contemporary or modern.

Sarastro1 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• • I've added a couple of things that I think are appropriate. The quote in the quote box should be PD (the author was born in 1868). Hope this is satisfactory. - Shudde ^talk 07:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I did some light copy-editing on this article, but nothing major. I think this article comfortably meets the criteria now, and well done to the nominator for putting up so patiently with my nit-picking. Good work. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Early life: "Introduced to rugby at the age of around 14 by his cousins at Otakou, later wrote of his first game" is missing Ellison or "He" after the comma.
• New Zealand Native football team: "Ireland led led 3–0 at half-time." Repeated "led" needs fixing.
• Wing-forward: The 1903 link appears at first to be a bare year link—which is undesirable—but turns out to be a valuable link to a tour article. Is there any way we can avoid this situation? Maybe we can make all of "Test match in 1903" go to that link and trust that interested readers will find the Test article if they need it?
• Professional and personal life: Last semi-colon should be a regular old comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've made those changes. I changed the sentence with the link to the 1903 tour. I think the link to Test match is probably more valuable, as it's not a term very well known in some parts of the world. Hopefully my changes address your comment satisfactorily. - Shudde ^talk 03:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

2012 tour of She Has a Name

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because the last FAC for this article failed solely due to lack of discussion and the article has since been promoted to good status. Neelix (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support (having stumbled here from my FAC), as GA Reviewer. I reviewed the article and it is high quality, meticulously sourced with appropriate references, displaying a significant amount of secondary source coverage of the topic. The article has high encyclopedic value and it's quite educational as well. — Cirt (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Comments

• File:RCMP_officers_Beth,_Janice_%26_Harp_2.jpg: since permission says "This photo belongs to the City of St. Albert", do we have evidence (eg. OTRS) that it is allowed to be used here?
• FN21, 22, 25, 67, 70p2, 71, 74: page?
• FN61: publisher?
• Suggest using "critical ratings" instead of "professional ratings"
• "Professional ratings of the performances ranged between 3 and 5 stars out of 5": technically true, but this seems problematic given the next sentence - that reviewer didn't use stars, but definitely wasn't that positive either
• " the play was declared to stand out" - a bit awkward
• "The performances in Calgary and Red Deer sold out.[7] Because the early 2011 performances were sold out" - repetitive
• Should be just "Aeolian Hall", no "The"
• In general, there's some repetitiveness in phrasing - try reading through with an eye to eliminating that
• Who is Brian McConaghy?
• What sort of special effects were there?
• "The festival organizers announced that attendance was up by 23% from the previous year" - suggest including at least one number, to contextualize percentage increase. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the image of the RCMP officers with a picture with a clearer statement of permission, added the publisher to FN61, switched "Professional ratings" to "Critical ratings", clarified the statement about the stars, reworded the statement about the play being "declared to stand out" for flow, reduced the amount of repetitiveness throughout the article, removed the "the" before "Aeolian Hall", added more information about Brian McConaghy, and added more information about the special effects. I am attempting to locate the missing page numbers through my local library. I have contacted the Calgary Fringe Festival and they have informed me that attendance in 2012 was at 9022. They also informed me that they have not published this statistic on their website or anywhere else, but would place the information on their website soon. Neelix (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I have dealt with all of the footnotes you mentioned; they all now either have page numbers or urls. Neelix (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Suport Comments from Jim Generally sound, and avoids pov, but inevitably some nitpicksJimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The performances in Calgary and Red Deer sold out.[7] Because the early 2011 performances were sold out—repeats "sold out"
• Carl Kennedy portrayed Jason, Evelyn Chew portrayed Number 18, Glenda Warkentin portrayed Marta, Alysa van Haastert portrayed Ali, and Sienna Howell-Holden portrayed Mama. —too many "portrays"
• one-man Passion play —"play" should be capped too
• London—I know it's linked on the first use, but still seems a bit Easter Eggy, I'd prefer "London, Ontario" on the first occasion to avoid confusion with the Great Wen.
• Fu—ing Stephen Harper—is this the actual title or a bowdlerised version thereof? Seems coy even for Canada (I've stayed on Davie in Vancouver!)
• The Gazette declared Kooman's play only second-best—to...?
• In the references, the title of the play needs italicising.
• Some of the references aren't really RS, such as campus newsletters and the Joy Smith site, but looking at what they are sourcing, I think they will do (no action required).

I have reduced the number of instances of "portrayed" to one, capitalized "Passion Play", added the provinces to the cities on the tour, spelled out the full name of Fucking Stephen Harper, named the play to which She Has a Name was declared second-best by The Gazette, and italicized the title of the play in the references. Neelix (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you've gone a little over the top giving explicit provinces for all the towns, I doubt that there are other Saskatoons or Ottawas, but that's your call. No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes way over the top with the province names, only London, Ontario needs one. Mattximus (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed all of the other province names. Neelix (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Spot checks I recommended a source check in one of the earlier reviews, but didn't do so myself as I'd already commented and was leaning support, so I was concerned about possible neutrality given I didn't have a fresh set of eyes. However, as no-one else has done so, here goes. I've selected statements and references more or less at random.

• Ref 5: Doesn't explicitly state that the pimp is unnamed, but this is implied
• Ref 16: Skype material Confirmed
• Ref 17: Confirmed
• Ref 34: Ms Tolsma refers to 'we' when discussing raising this money, but the article only credits her as being involved and she doesn't say who she was representing so the statement that there was "a group" which raised funds is not confirmed by this reference
• Ref 52: Written before the performance, and so doesn't confirm who the panelists actually were on the day
• Ref 38b: Ditto
• Ref 48: Confirmed
• Refs 63, 64a: Confirmed
• Ref 68: The Vancouver Sun link is to a Factivia link and prompts me for a university log-in
• Ref 72 is aslo a Factivia link and should be marked as such (it also prompts me for a university log-in). I'd suggest running through the references and marking or amending these references (note that this is also disclosing the university you have links with, which you may not wish to be doing)
• Ref 76: confirmed, but can you say what the base figure for the 23% increase was?
• As a couple of observations: 1) few of the references are to what I'd consider first-rate sources, and many are to what seem to be puff pieces promoting this play or pages published by community and church groups. In the context this is probably an acceptable level of referencing given that nothing better is likely to be available, but it's a bit marginal (not a reason to oppose IMO, but it raises a question mark). 2) the word 'Church' kept jumping springing up in the references (several of which were actually published by churches), including in relation to who funded and provided venues for the performances. There seems to be a religious link here which is never really fleshed out in the article - it seems that church groups with an interest in social justice were a significant audience and source of support for the tour. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the word "unnamed" and have reworded the statements about the panelists to clarify that they were scheduled rather than that they attended. I have added "Subscription reqiured" tags to all of the references that employ Factiva links. I don't mind disclosing the fact that I am affiliated with the university mentioned. I have called the Calgary Fringe Festival again and they again agreed to place the attendance statistic on their website; hopefully, it will actually go up this time. They have told me that there were 9022 people in attendance in 2012, but there are currently no published sources for that statistic. I would agree that a significant portion of the audiences and support for the tour came from church groups interested in social justice; at least two fundraisers for the tour were held at churches, one of the performances took place at a church, and two of the panels took place at churches. I haven't found any sources that say anything more than that, however. Is there any way that you feel this point should be fleshed out in the article more? Neelix (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You can only go as far as the sources say (and of course, I could be totally wrong in my assessment!). The coverage is OK given the available sources, but overall I think that this article's sources are a bit on the lightweight side for a FA, to be frank. A single academic article or an in-depth story by a serious journalist would be more useful in covering this topic than all the current sources combined. I'm certainly not opposing this article's promotion, and would be pleased to see it on the main page given that it's an impressive piece of work and you've made great use of what's available (and I know how hard it is to build an FA when there aren't any comprehensive sources to draw on) but I don't think that I can support it either. So I'm going to sit on the fence. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- Although this nom has a healthy level of support, it's still barely two weeks old and I'd like to leave it open a little longer to give any other potential reviewers a chance to comment, especially in light of Nick's points above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

SMS Thüringen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet another one, this ship saw heavy action at Jutland and blew up HMS Black Prince at very close range in some ferocious night fighting. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article represents our best work. Thanks all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• there is a bit of overlinking: Kaiser Wilhelm II, destroyers, Seydlitz, Grand Fleet, pre-dreadnoughts, David Beatty, Nassau, SMS Moltke and Von der Tann
  • Should be all fixed.
• all toolbox checks are green (dab, external links, alt text, reflinks, redirect, earwig)
• not sure why New York City, Amherst, New York and Ratingen are linked in the References section
  • All fixed.
• suggest you note in the lead she was a dreadnought
  • Good idea.
• suggest "less than three years from whenafter work commenced"
  • Sounds good
• suggest "which were followed by I Squadron exercises"
  • Sure
• suggest you link "Wilhelmshaven"
  • Ok
• suggest you briefly note who Niemöller was for context eg "war, the future anti-Nazi Lutheran pastor...
  • Sounds good to me.
• suggest "Thüringen was present duringparticipated in"
  • Works for me.
• suggest " Thüringen and the rest of the fleet then remained in port until 4 August"
  • Alright
• suggest "ahead of heranother sister Helgoland"
  • Sure
• during Jutland, did she hit Warspite or Malaya at all?
  • No, and I've clarified this now.
• "which appeared to have been blown overboard" should this be "which appears to have been blown overboard" It currently sounds as if it was already gone.
  • Fixed.
• "Thüringen was surrendered to the French Navy on 29 April 1920 as "L"" not sure what "L" means.
  • Just the transfer name.
• could you have another look at the references? A few appear to be a bit light on in terms of title and editor names. For example, Groner appears to be the author, but there are two editors,one of whom is a contributor, and the full title appears to be German Warships, 1815-1945: Major surface vessels which is Volume 1 of the series. Another example is the title of Tarrant, the full version apparently being Jutland: The German Perspective : a New View of the Great Battle, 31 May 1916. Campbell also appears to have two authors, the other one being N.J.M. Campbell.
  • John Campbell is NJM Campbell - sometimes he goes by the former, others by the latter. The rest should be fixed.

A pleasure to review. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• These two sentences might profitably be combined: The ship also saw action in the Baltic Sea against the Imperial Russian Navy. She participated in the unsuccessful first incursion into the Gulf of Riga in August 1915.
• Link keel
• Is length overall, between perpendiculars, waterline?
• Dates like 19th are contrary to WP:DATE
• Is there a link for Operation Schlußstein? I've never heard of it before.
• Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Should all be fixed. There's no article on Schlußstein - it's a fairly obscure thing. Herwig wrote an article in Slavic Review in 1973 that covers the operation if you're interested. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Interstate 96

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it merits review and promotion. I-96 is an intrastate Interstate Highway; it only exists in Michigan. It parallels Grand River Avenue across most of the Lower Peninsula of the state, following in the proverbial footsteps of an Indian path and an early wagon trail used in the early settlement of Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support I reviewed at both GA and ACR (Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 96) and feel it meets the criteria. --Rschen7754 18:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I also reviewed it at ACR and believe that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 19:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC) I saw this and read it over a couple days ago and it's quite meticulous in its breadth and referencing. But that table in section Exit list sure does pack in a lot of useful info. That would probably be quite useful for readers, editors, and of course, travelers, alike. — Cirt (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Middle Ages

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC); User:Johnbod; User:Malleus Fatuorum

Well, this has been a labor of love. I'd like to nominate the vital article Middle Ages for featured article status because after almost two years of work, I believe it meets all the requirements of that status - it's comprehensive, focused, well written and probably the best short introduction to the very large topic on the web. When I first started working on it - it looked like this. 900 some edits later it's grown a bit but it's lost a lot of junk along the way. It IS long - 14,300+ words, but it's hard to condense it much more without losing the comprehensiveness - it's a very complex topic. But it's not THAT big ... there are a good number of other FAs that exceed it's length (158,502 bytes - putting it about 28th on Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length - below Byzantine Empire (which covers about the same time frame..)) I've had a lot of help with this - Johnbod wrote the art and architecture sections, which I would suck at, and I've had copyediting help from John and Malleus. Malleus, as usual, has gone way beyond the call of duty and I think has copyedited the whole thing three times, at least.

I present to you, one of the main historical periods, and arguably the formative one for the current world, Middle Ages. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Driveby

• is there any way to avoid "period is a period" in the first sentence?
• I think there needs to be another paragraph in the lead talking of the age as a whole. There are three paras, one each for every subdivision, but what sets the Middle Ages as a whole apart from the preceding and succeeding ages? What are the common characteristics of the Age? You can include a sentence or two from the Modern image sentence as well.122.172.168.44 (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There isn't really a "common" theme to the entire period though. We're talking over a thousand years of history - you can't even say it's feudalism or manorialism, as they really aren't throughout the period. You can't say it's "depopulation" because the high middle ages are marked by rising pops. You can't say it's rising pops, because the later middle ages are a period of falling pops. You can't say it's a period of invasions, because that's not the case in the later period. You can't say it's a period of little learning, because parts are marked by lots of learning. You can't say it's the rise of centralized government, because the early period is marked by the distentigration of governments. There are actually four paras - if there had been some uniting characteristic I'd have included it in the first paragraph. FOr that matter, I don't think you could summarize Ancient history or Modern history that way either. The "Defining characteristic" of the entire period is that it's between two other periods. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Ealdgyth, isn't explaining that there in fact aren't any "common characteristics of the Age" due to, as you say, the term being used to refer to a substantial period of history, just as valid as saying there are? I'm sure it's a common misconception that when people think of The Middle Ages, they think x, y, and z. I think it would be very useful to explain in the article what you've explained above - why the term is probably not so useful as it is so vague.--Coin945 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, but that's OR ... it's my distillation from not only studying but also years of reading the subject. The question that was asked isn't one that is asked and answered by historians, so I can't insert it into the article because there are no sources for it beyond my opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As for the other - we could use "era" if you like, but I'm not totally adverse to doubling the phrasing like that. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

    I've recast the "period ... period" thingie, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. But I think some thing from Modern misconceptions should be there. That first sentence, for example, is an excellent encapsulation of what people think.
• Couple more things:

• Can we shorten that to "The period is subdivided into the Early, the High, and the Late Middle Ages."?
• Why are the one-paragraph summaries of the three Ages in the lead so differently sized? Did the Late MA cover a shorter period than the other two?122.172.170.48 (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, the Early MA was 450-1000 (550 years), the High was 1000-1300 (300 years), and the Late was 1300-1500 (200 years). Those are rough approximations, yes. It's more dictated by the length of the body text on each. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from P. S. Burton A very impressive article. You have really tackled a vital subject for the encyclopaedia. So far, I have only one comment. There appears to be some inconsistency in how the locations are given for the works cited. For example, some entries gives the location as "Oxford, UK" while others just says "London" without the "UK". P. S. Burton (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  I'd prefer to dump all the locations, but I'll leave that decision to Ealdgyth. 21:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  I generally use the "UK" or state when the location is not blindingly obvious - thus I leave off "NY" from "New York" and "UK" from London, but otherwise, I generally give the information. Same deal as with Wikipedia articles - We have London not London, United Kingdom, and New York not New York, New York. (although I'm sure there are redirects... ) And I did enough academic publishing that it's ingrained in me to give locations. It's also handy to judge reliablity of sources - if you run across something published in Pocatello, Idaho and it's not related to horses, you need to investigate that source a bit better... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  OK. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• There also appears to be some inconsistency between the use of "XXth century" and "XXth-century". Especially in image captions. P. S. Burton (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  I have not the slightest idea which is correct ... Malleus??? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article is correct, because there are two different uses; as an adjective—"an 11th-century vase"—and as a simple noun "vase from the 11th century". MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers at WP:CENTURY does not actually deal with this, though someone who thinks it does is busy removing all hyphens from articles. I don't have strong views but no longer use them myself; there may be inconsistency in the article? Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  No, there isn't. The article is perfectly consistent. Malleus Fatuorum 04:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

  Elsewhere on that page: "Centuries are given in figures or words using adjectival hyphenation where appropriate: the 5th century BCE; nineteenth-century painting."122.172.168.44 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please check capitalisation of compass points. I am not sure whether the current mixture of "Western Europe" and "western Europe" is correct. P. S. Burton (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ARGH. I whacked on those for ages... looking again. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I got them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I am not a native speaker myself, but what about "Slavic peoples settled in central and eastern Europe", "In eastern Europe, Byzantium had revived its fortunes" and "Mongols first shattered the Kievan Rus' principalities and then invaded eastern Europe"? Should any of these also be changed? P. S. Burton (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Got those, thanks for catching those! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• I also think that you should double-check the capitalisation of "emperor" and "king" per WP:JOBTITLES. P. S. Burton (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ran through and got all I could see. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from MasterOfHisOwnDomain My hat off to everyone who has contributed to such a fine and worthy article. A real achievement. But a few things:

• There is no discussion in the etymology section of the term medieval, even though it is used synonymously with Middle Ages throughout the article, and redirects here.
  • I'll try to find something, but it's probably from the latin medium aevum... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Added ... handy to have a Random House Dictionary floating (well... not floating, as the thing is like 12 pounds or something insane) around. That do you? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Much better. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've seen 'Middle Ages' used (probably erroneously) to describe events during this period that take place outside of Europe, i.e., medieval Japan. Could this be briefly discussed?
  • It's not usually discussed in RS though - the definition of "Middle Ages" pretty much precludes it being used outside. Medieval is occasionally applied to non-European periods, but the dates don't usually align, so it's pretty hard to find discussion in historical or scholarly sources. In your example, medieval Japan covers totally different dates (and I'm not a scholar of Japan, so I'd be hesitant to give the dates ... but it could be argued that that period goes until Perry's opening of Japan, certainly not congruent with the European dates!) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Usually 1603 & the Tokugawa Shogunate I think. I've said elsewhere that Medieval periods in global history needs its own article, but Middle Ages is almost always just Europe, hence the article title works. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• In Modern Image, use of the term "medieval" as a perjorative to refer to something outdated or old-fashioned?

• In the same vein, I have a feeling that Modern Image doesn't adequately cover how we view the period, although I can't think of any concrete examples at the moment to suggest. Will consider it further. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I "inherited" that section. One suggestion might be to rename it something slightly different - perhaps "Modern misconceptions"? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Or "Modern perceptions" - "image" is not good. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

My most favoured is "Modern perceptions" because it's a more open title, but "Misconceptions" is also fine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Low-impact driveby comment by Curly Turkey

You know, you wouldn't need to have all those {{nowrap}}s transcluded if you used  . You seem to be using it only to keep the enumerated part of kings' etc. names, like "Emperor Thumbuphisbum XIV". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A single {{nowrap}} requires fewer characters than two  's. But yeah, it's pointless for strings with a single space. Praemonitus (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Commments

Minor points:

• "against the renewed war with Sassanid Persia, which began in the middle of the 3rd century" - unclear if this means that there was a previous war before the middle of the 3rd century, which was renewed in the middle of the 3rd century; or if there was a war from the middle of the 3rd century, which was renewed later in the century. You could lose "renewed", and it would probably remove any confusion.

Does ""against the war with Sassanid Persia, which revived in the middle of the 3rd century" work? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed to Johnbod's formulation. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Other groups of barbarians took part in the movements of peoples in this time period. " this read a little awkwardly to me.
• "and no barbarian king in the west dared to elevate himself to the position of Emperor of the West, but Byzantine control of most of the West could not be sustained" - consistency of capitalisation of "west"

Drop down the 3rd West I'd say, or use "Western Empire". Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Went with "Western Empire" there. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Although the activity of the barbarians is usually described as "invasions"" - should that be "activities" to match the plural of "invasions"?

Switched. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Intermarriage between the new kings and the Roman elites was common" - I'm not sure its been made clear yet that the new kings weren't Romans.

Now it reads "The emperors of the 5th century were often controlled by military strongmen such as Stilicho (d. 408), Aspar (d. 471), Ricimer (d. 472), or Gundobad (d. 516), who were partly or fully of non-Roman background. When the line of western emperors ceased, many of the kings who replaced them were from the same background. Intermarriage between the new kings and the Roman elites was common." - does that make it clearer? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " including the popular assemblies that allowed free male tribal members more say in political matters" - more say than whom?

Now reads "that allowed free male tribal members more say in political matters than was common in the Roman state." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Much of the intellectual culture of the new kingdoms" - I wasn't certain what an intellectual culture was exactly. (I could think of several things it might be)

Now reads "Much of the scholarly and written culture of the new kingdoms was also based..." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Many of the new political entities no longer provided their armies with tax revenues..." - felt a bit ugly as a construction. "Many of the new political entities no longer supported their armies through taxes, instead relying on granting them land or rents."?

Went with your construction. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " the eastern section of the Roman Empire" - I think earlier the article had started calling it just the Eastern Roman Empire.

Switched. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "At the emperor's death" - Should emperor have a capital letter in this case? (it standing in for a specific, not generic, emperor?)

I'll defer to Malleus on this, but I think that general MOS trends are against this. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm definitely against it, as in this context "emperor" isn't a proper noun. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Justinian's reconquests have been criticized" - by who?

Almost every historian. Now reads "Justinian's reconquests have been criticized by historians..." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " the essentially civilian nature of the empire" - I wasn't sure this read well.
• " It began as a small invasion" - an invasion, even if small, doesn't sound much like an "infiltration"!

Now reads "It began small, ..." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Further complications were the involvement of the emperor Maurice" - plural of complications, singular example.

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "As some of the older Roman elite families died out others became more involved with Church than secular affairs." - I couldn't see the link between the two halves of the sentence.

Now reads "In Western Europe, some of the older Roman elite families died out while others became more involved with Church than secular affairs." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "With laymen, a similar change took place, with the aristocratic culture focusing on great feasts held in halls." - what's the similarity with the changes in the previous paragraph, and how does it link to the feasts?

Now reads "With laymen, changes also took place, with the aristocratic culture focusing on great feasts held in halls rather than on literary pursuits." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Most feuds seem to have ended quickly with the payment of some sort of compensation." - this could mean two different things (feuds ended quickly when payment was made; most feuds ended quickly, because payments were made)

These seem the same to me, pretty much. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To take a comparative example, in traditional Pashtu society, blood feuds ended quickly once (or if) payment was made; in practice, most feuds didn't end quickly, as payment wasn't made. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well in the MA they did end quickly, both "when" and "because" payment was made. I'm still not seeing a distinction. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with Johnbod here, I'm not seeing the distinction... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Although Italian cities remained inhabited places" - is "places" needed here?

No I think Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• A bit more to come. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• "By the middle of the 8th century, new trading patterns were emerging in the Mediterranean" I think there's a sudden switch here between Islamic forces, and Arabs.

I'm open to suggestions for how to phrase this better... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "African trade goods slowly leave the archaeological record" I know what is meant here, but is there an easier way to state the "so-what", rather than the evidence? (e.g. "African goods stopped being imported into Europe..."?)

Went with your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The replacement of trade goods with local products" - I'm not sure that I could easily distinguish between "trade goods" and "local products", given that local trade persisted

"goods for long-range trade" ? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Went with "The replacement of goods from long-range trade with local products was a trend..." although better suggestions are welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with little pottery or other complex products." - the language here felt odd; a non-archaeologist might not think of a pot as being a "complex product"

I agree but can't think of a better way to state it that stays true to the source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As a traded product, pottery is much more complex than basic commodities, if only because you have to find designs that distant markets like. In ancient Roman pottery both Gaul (including modern Germany) and North Africa were massive suppliers to Italy and the capital, with sophisticated designs. Not so in the MA. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The various Germanic states in the west all had coinages that imitated existing Roman and Byzantine forms." Could coinage just be "coins"?

I'm not sure, rather stay with the phrasing I know is accurate unless some expert weighs in. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Harmless change I think. One might use "designs" instead of "forms" too. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "No silver coins denominated in multiple units were minted." - is there any simpler way of saying this?

Not that I could think or .... but suggestions welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Silver coins were only minted in a single denomination" perhaps - not sure how much clearer that is. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Christianity was a major unifying factor between Eastern and western Europe" - inconsistent capitalisation

Got this. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "but the conquest of North Africa sundered maritime connections " - "broke" rather than "sundered"?

But ... but ... I want to show off my vocabulary! (And I suspect I'm trying to avoid too close paraphrasing here... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Louis divided the rest of the empire..." " Louis the German (d. 876), the middle child, who had been rebellious to the last," Does this mean that Louis divided the empire on his death, and the L the German was rebellious up until then? It wasn't very clear.

Yes it does. It's a very confused period. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The breakup of the Abbasid dynasty meant that the Islamic world fragmented into smaller political states, some of which began expanding into Italy and Sicily, as well as over the Pyrenees into the southern parts of the Frankish kingdoms" - The jump to "The breakup..." was a bit jarring, as it wasn't clear what the link with the rest of the paragraph was until the second half.

I'm not sure how to better word this, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"After the breakup of the Abbasid dynasty the Islamic world fragmented ...." Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The western Frankish kingdom was more fragmented, and although a king remained nominally in charge, much of the political power had devolved to the local lords." - "kings" rather than "a king" might be clearer.

took your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Few large stone buildings were constructed between the Constantinian basilicas of the 4th century and the 8th century" - could be read two different ways - might be worth rewording slightly.

What two ways? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Either that "Few large stone buildings were constructed between the building of the Constantinian basilicas in the 4th century and the 8th century" (which is what is meant), or that the sentence was making a physical point (there were various basilicas, and large stone buildings were built between them). It's the first time that basilicas are mentioned in the article, so the "the Constantinian basilicas" is probably what was throwing me off. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The 4th century is before the MA starts. I doubt the possible "physical point" will occur to many. It certainly didn't to me. If we were talking about a specific place, say Rome, maybe, but otherwise not. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "One feature of the basilica was the use of a transept,[131] or the "arms" of a cross-shaped building that are perpendicular to the long nave." - there's a change of tense here which was a little disconcerting.

Changed Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "During the later Roman Empire, the principal military developments had to do with attempts to create an effective cavalry force" - felt a little wordy ("had to do with attempts to...")

" developments concerned attempts ..." is good pompous encyclopedic prose. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Went with "principal military developments were attempts to create an effective cavalry" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The creation of cataphract-type soldiers was an important feature of 5th-century Roman military developments. " I'm not sure this is quite right (they were created, and were an important development, but were they a feature of multiple developments?)

Now reads "The creation of cataphract-type soldiers was an important feature of the 5th-century Roman military.." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " whoh had a high percentage of cavalry in their armies" - spare "h" there

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The importance of infantry and light cavalry began to decline during the early Carolingian period, with a corresponding dominance of military events by the elite. " - Not sure I agree here. Plenty of infantry soldiers have been elite; I think it would be fairer to say "with a growing dominance of elite heavy cavalry" perhaps?

Went with your construction. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The use of militia-type levies of the free population" - felt an ungainly construct

Suggestions welcome... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"The use of local citizen levies declined...", "The conscription of local freemen declined over..."? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In military technology, one of the main change" - "changes"

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Another great change was the introduction of the stirrup, which allowed the more effective use of cavalry as shock troops." - a bit repetitious from the last para

Now reads "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, increasing the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• More to follow. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I see these and will get them all in one swoop when you're done. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Nobles, both the titled nobility and simple knights, were the exploiters of the manors and the peasants, although they did not own lands outright, but were granted rights to the income from a manor or other lands by an overlord through the system of feudalism. " - I wasn't sure "exploiters" felt neutral here.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a better word that still manages to convey that they pretty much had the right to exploit their serfs... suggestions are welcome (I did avoid using "oppress" .. which you see often in the literature) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Women in the Middle Ages were officially required to be subordinate to some male, whether their father, husband, or other kinsmen" - is "officially" really correct? (Which official decreed this?) I'd argue that "typically subordinate" might be more accurate, particularly given the ambiguous role of widows etc.

We could use "legally" if you'd prefer... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and gold coinage was again minted in Europe" - "gold coins"?

As above, I'm hesitant to go away from what the source uses here in case I miss some nuance. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Same difference. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• "letters of credit also emerged" - repetition of emerged

Changed to "appeared". Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The High Middle Ages was the formative period in the history of the Western state. " - "modern Western state"?

Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Hungary owed its settlement to the Magyars, who settled there around 900 under King Árpád" - ? I think there were people living in Hungary before the Magyars...

Suggestions on better wording? I could go with "foundation" instead of "settlement"... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Hungary was settled by the Magyars, who arrived there around 900 under King Árpád" Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I like Johnbod's variant. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Although Barbarossa managed to rule effectively, the basic problems remained, and his successors continued to struggle into the 13th century." - the phrasing here didn't quite work for me ("managed to rule", "continued to struggle into...")

But they did struggle - they were pretty much always in some sort of difficulty ... partly due to the nature of their state. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Although Barbarossa was able to rule effectively, the underlying problems remained and troubled his successors into the 13th century."? (else we've got three "struggles/struggled" in one para) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• A bit more to come. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Another outgrowth of the crusades were the foundation of a new type of monastic order," - matching of "were" and "a new type"

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "From the fairly tentative beginnings known as the" - I don't think "fairly" is needed here.

I'll leave this to Johnbod - he's the art expert. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, all right then; changed. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " the lower rents were balanced out by the lower demand for food, which cut into agricultural income" -I think we need to be clear here what sort of agricultural income we mean (there's a difference between between rental income for agricultural lands, and the income of agricultural workers).

Actually it means both here. But I've changed it to "Wages rose as landlords sought to entice the reduced number of available workers to their fields. Further problems were the lower rents and lower demands for food, both of which cut into agricultural income." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• More to come. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Points of substance:

• "*"Stone castles began to be constructed in the 9th and 10th centuries in response to the disorder of the time, and allowed inhabitants to take refuge from invaders." - I'm not certain this is quite right. Certainly in Western Europe, the pattern is the initial construction of wooden castles, with stone castles appearing as much for status reasons as defensive, during the period. I'd have to check, but the initial use of castles isn't, I'd suggest for protecting local inhabitants. Worth taking a look at the Castle article; there's some more recent scholarship as well, but I don't think it contradicts that article.

Yes, perhaps "Castles, initially in wood but later in stone, began..." and "allowed lords protection from rivals" more typically for early ones, and in post-conquest England disgruntled Anglo-Saxons. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "Castles, initially in wood but later in stone, began to be constructed in the 9th and 10th centuries in response to the disorder of the time, and provided protection from invaders as well as allowed lords defence from rivals." I think it's important to remember that the castles start appearing in the times of invasions ... they didn't just arise because of local politics. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Women's work generally consisted of household or other domestically inclined tasks. Peasant women were usually responsible for taking care of the household, child-care, as well as gardening and animal husbandry near the house." I may be being picky (this is an overview, after all), but this does vary quite a lot by period and location.

I think we're on pretty safe ground here, as most of the time, they were stuck in house-related tasks. There were exceptions, of course, but this is an overview article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The only role open to women in the Church was that of nuns, as they were unable to become priests." - and religious recluses? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There were some very unreclusive freelance mystics in the late medieval church, like Margery Kempe, whose highly ostentatious ways of carrying on are not mentioned in WP's article. Perhaps: "In the church hierarchy, women were restricted to roles in the female orders.." - sounds a bit lame. Johnbod (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The history of mystics and other women non-nuns is very ... iffy. Mostly, they weren't tolerated "in" the church - they faced serious obstacles from the church hierarchy at every turn (look at the problems beguines faced...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The construction of cathedrals and castles advanced building technology, leading to the development of large stone buildings." Is this referenced from Barber? (NB: I don't think I've seen many argue that castles created technologies then applied elsewhere on other buildings, but I could be wrong.)

Yes, it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Crossbows, which had been known in Late Antiquity, increased in use partly because of the increase in siege warfare in the 10th and 11th centuries." - this is one factor, but there are others (e.g. its penetrative power against armour; technical improvements in crossbow power during the period; training time, etc.)

Again, an overview. I think its clear that we're only listing some ... if I listed everything for all the stuff in the article we'd hit 20,000 words Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Cannon were being used for sieges in the 1320s, and hand-held guns were in use by the 1360s" - Is it worth noting that initially (at least in England) these were used defensively (i.e. people weren't firing guns at fortifications, they were being used by the defenders?)

I think we're better off avoiding going into too much detail... it wasn't that much after first appearance that they show up on the other side of sieges. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the causes of the Great Famine included the climatic change of the slow transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age, and also overspecialisation in single crops, which left the population vulnerable when bad weather caused crop failures." - I'm not an expert, but I'd argue that this gives undue prominence to the overspecialisation argument (I'd suggest that the more usual explanations are simply climatic change, a string of bad weather, backed by very high population levels and - possibly - soil exhaustion.)

Agree. Cut the overspecializtion bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Execution of some of the ringleaders of the jacquerie, from a 14th-century manuscript of the Chroniques de France ou de St Denis" - I've usually seen jacquerie capitalised.

Yes, should be. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Kings profited from warfare by gaining land and extended royal legislation throughout their kingdoms." - I wasn't sure what sort of "gaining land" was meant here (e.g. gaining land by conquest, or consolidating the royal demensne at home?)
• "Paying for the wars required that methods of taxation become more efficient, and the rate of taxation often increased." - Just to check: "efficient" (it cost the Crown less money to raise each £ of revenue) or "effective" (they raised more in taxes)?
• "The Late Middle Ages in Europe as a whole correspond to the Trecento and Early Renaissance in Italy, although Northern Europe and Spain continued to use Gothic styles, increasingly elaborate in the 15th century, until almost the end of the period." - it felt that something was missing after Renaissance; "artistic styles"? "architectural styles"?Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Trecento & Early Renaissance are general cultural periods, used to cover literature of all sorts & things like politics too. That's also, to a lesser extent, true of "Gothic" for Northern Europe. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• In that case, how about "The Late Middle Ages in Europe as a whole correspond to the Trecento and Early Renaissance cultural periods in Italy..."? I found Trecento linked earlier, but the first time I read it in this paragraph I wasn't at all sure quite what it referred to.

• That's about it from me - cracking article! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • I got one, but it would be helpful, with this many illustrations, if the ones that are wrong could be listed? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:2008-05-17-SuttonHoo.jpg: should be obvious given the age, but as a 3D work this does need an explicit license for the object as well as the image; same with File:Venice_–_The_Tetrarchs_04.jpg, File:Theoderic_Quarter_Siliqua_80000847.jpg, File:Christ_Magdeburg_Cathedral_Met_41.100.157.jpg, File:Richard_of_Wallingford.jpg
  • I've got all of them but the Richard of Wallingford - which already HAD the PD tag (it's 2D, not 3D). If I've put the wrong tags on... can you point me to the freaking correct tag? I'm tired of trying to find things on Commons - they don't make it easy. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's my fault, must've put that in the wrong place. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Frühmittelalterliches_Dorf.jpg has no licensing info
  • Are we looking at the same image page? I see it plain as day "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • ...clearly not. Not sure what happened there, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead
  • And what should i do about it? (sighs). I'm sorry if I sound testy, but it seems like images are becoming so much of a pain in the arse I'm half tempted to just pull all of these you identified from the article. I'm not stupid about copyright, I make my living as a photographer (among other things) so I'm not a person who wants to rip other people off, but a lot of this is just plain silly paperwork to jump through hoops for the sake of jumping through hoops. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Completely agree that we're jumping through hoops, but there's not much either of us can do about that, unfortunately...I've seen multiple obviously old and out-of-copyright files tagged for deletion because of missing or incomplete source info. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Website moved (probably in 2012), changed link to new entry page link for "maps". GermanJoe (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Growth_of_Frankish_Power,_481-814.jpg needs US PD tag, and the date given contradicts the pre-1923 licensing on the edited version (File:Growth_of_Frankish_Power,_481-814_Edit.jpeg)
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Cleric-Knight-Workman.jpg: "adapted from" link is dead
  • What do I need to do to fix this and the next one? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Ideally, find a new or archived version of the link, if possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
      • And fixed, archived version found. GermanJoe (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Richard_of_Wallingford.jpg, File:Plague_victims_blessed_by_priest.jpg: source link is dead
  • Fixed both (given the detailed book info the links would be optional here anyway, but found archive and replacement). GermanJoe (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Europe_1360.jpg, File:07_Grégoire_XI_(couronné_par_Guy_de_Boulogne).jpg need US PD tags. Nikkimaria (talk)
  • Which tag exactly? Because silly me thought that the current tag on the image was enough, and I certainly won't be able to figure it out from the Commons pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed both. It's most often either PD-1923 or PD-old-100, whatever fits the author and publication info. GermanJoe (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - maps. The Carolingian division maps in "Breakup of the Carolingian Empire" have an error:

• The map of 870 (after Meerssen) shows Louis II in grey in Germany and Louis the German in yellow in Italy. The two realms and rulers are mixed up - Louis II (in grey) was still in Italy after 870 and Louis the German (in yellow) in Germany.
• A minor suggestion, but i would color the Carolingian Italian realm (and not Lotharingia) in the second and third map in dark violet similar to Middle Francia in the first map. Emperor Louis II was the eldest son and inherited Italy and the prestigious title of Emperor (and Lotharingia quickly lost any independent power after the division). GermanJoe (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't have the software to do such changes ... can you suggest someone to help out with this? I'm a photographer, not a graphic designer (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I and User:P. S. Burton changed them (source: Timothy Reuter, "Germany in the Early Middle Ages"). Please check, if all is OK (need to refresh browser cache). GermanJoe (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

One note I corrected a few American spellings in this a Euro-centric article. Might want to check and make sure spelling is consistent. LittleJerry (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• I found the following variations (Centralised, recognised, canonised, organized, emphasized, centralized, criticized, colonized, reorganized, specialized, mobilized and specialized). But perhaps the article uses Oxford spelling. P. S. Burton (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realize that British English also uses -ized often. So I reverted my changes. LittleJerry (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

On another note: Not a big deal but shouldn't the lead image be of something that the readers will instantly recognize as medieval, like a castle or knight's armor? LittleJerry (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

See the lengthy discussion on the talk page. Some people expect an image essentially from the last 150 years of this 1,000 yr + period, but the discussion supports this choice. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments: I've read down to "Church and monasticism" so far. It's looking like something of a masterpiece to me at the moment. I can't fault it for content, and my comments are minor prose ones. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• My only content reservation is that religion seems downplayed slightly; Europe seems to become Christian awfully easily in the article, with little mention of the conversion, and there is nothing about the religions which preceded it, no matter how little was known. Actually, re-reading, and looking at the next sections, I don't actually think this is the case. Perhaps a little on the pre-Christian religions, if it is available, and their replacement with Christianity? But no big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "when the Hunnic confederation he led fell apart": Fell apart seems slightly less encyclopaedic than the surrounding text.

I think we're probably okay here... "total collapse" is pretty much what happened here... the Huns are done as a political and military force with Attila's death. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The last emperor of the west, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed in 476, which has led that year to be traditionally cited as the end of the Western Roman Empire.": "Which has led that year" lacks a little elegance. What about something like "The deposition of the last emperor of the west, Romulus Augustus, in 476 traditionally marked the end of the Western Roman Empire [among historians?]."

Went with "The deposition of the last emperor of the west, Romulus Augustus, in 476 has traditionally marked the end of the Western Roman Empire."

• "With the invasions new ethnic groups entered parts of Europe…": "with the invasions" seems a bit ambiguous: does it mean in the sense that the groups accompanied the invaders, or the ethnic groups were invaders who settled?

  Fixed I think. Malleus Fatuorum 05:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "but the settlement was uneven, with some regions having a larger settlement of new peoples than others. Gaul's settlement was uneven": Uneven…uneven.

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 05:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with the barbarians settling much more extensively in the north-east than in the south-west": noun plus -ing.

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 05:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This led to a period of peace, but when Maurice was overthrown in turn": This is the first overthrow mentioned in the text which involved Maurice.

Err... previous sentence "A further complication was the involvement of the emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) in Persian politics when he intervened in a succession dispute. This led to a period of peace, but when Maurice was overthrown in turn, the Persians invaded and during the reign of the emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) managed to control large chunks of the Empire, including Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that, to the general reader, succession dispute does not equal overthrow. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• With laymen, a similar change took place, with the aristocratic culture focusing on great feasts held in halls": With … with and another noun plus -ing.

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In Anglo-Saxon society the lack of many child rulers meant a lesser role for women as queen mothers": This reads like a comparison to elsewhere, but nothing about mothers of child rulers in mentioned previously.

Previous sentence "Women took part in aristocratic society mainly in their roles as wives or mothers of men, with the role of mother of a ruler being especially prominent in Merovingian Gaul. In Anglo-Saxon society the lack of many child rulers meant a lesser role for women as queen mothers, but this was compensated for by the increased role played by abbesses of monasteries." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. It still reads as a comparison to me, but not a big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with few of the western bishops looking to the bishop of Rome": noun plus -ing Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 05:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

More comments: Read to the end of the Early Middle Ages now. Still looking brilliant. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Monks were also the authors of new works, including history, theology, and other subjects, written by authors such as Bede (d. 735), a native of northern England who wrote in the late 7th and early 8th century.": "authors…authors", and do we need "and other subjects" given the use of "including"?

Unless I replace the second author with 'writer', I think we can do with a bit of repetition here. I also want to emphasize the "other subjects" here, so its probably safe enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The Frankish kingdom in northern Gaul split into kingdoms called Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy during the 6th and 7th centuries under the Merovingians, who were descended from Clovis": This looks slightly confusing. We do not say who the Merovingians are, and it looks odd that there are multiple kingdoms under them.

I'm not seeing the confusion possiblities, but have reworded slightly to "The Frankish kingdom in northern Gaul split into kingdoms called Austrasia, Neustria, and Burgundy during the 6th and 7th centuries, all of them ruled by the Merovingian dynasty, who were descended from Clovis." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "…who became the power behind the throne": And similarly: what throne?

Now "behind the Austrasian throne" Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The coronation of Charlemagne as emperor on Christmas Day 800": I think we may need to say who crowned him, as there is a bit of a vacuum in the current sentence, and I think Leo is quite a big part of that story.

Current scholarship plays down the importance of Leo's crowning. Keep in mind that Charlemagne went on to crown his own son rather than get papal sanction, and for a number of years after that it wasn't common for the papacy to be involved in imperial selection. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• In the Carolingian breakup section, it is a little vague where people are kings of. Was there no other name than "western" and "eastern" lands? For example, what would Hugh Capet have been crowned as king of? And what about Conrad I? (I always understood Hugh Capet to be "King of the Franks", or something similar) But then the next paragraph is rather more certain, naming a Frankish king and a German and Italian kingdom.

It was vague up until about the time of Capet, actually. They sorta solidified then, but prior to that (and especially at the very start of the breakup) it was a bit fluid. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "were under continual Magyar assault until their defeat at the Battle of Lechfeld in 955": Slightly ambiguous who was defeated here.

Is "assault until the invader's defeat at the" better? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The use of militia-type levies of the free population also declined over the Carolingian period": We mention a decline without ever stating that it had happened, except in the following sentence on Anglo-Saxon England. Perhaps switch the order slightly? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Took the easy way out and removed the "also" Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

More comments: Down to end of High Middle Ages now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Nobles were stratified, with kings and the highest nobility controlling large numbers of commoners as well as other nobles": Noun plus -ing.
  • Malleus? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

    Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Beneath that highest rank, other nobles controlled less land and fewer people, and below them were knights, who controlled lands but not other nobles. Those with least status in the nobility were knights who did not own land and had to serve other nobles": Some repetition here: could the sentences be merged?
  • I think I'll punt this to Malleus also. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

    I've rewritten that a little, hopefully now fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In 1024, the ruling dynasty changed to the Salian dynasty, who famously clashed with the papacy under Emperor Henry IV (r. 1084–1105) over church appointments as part of the Investiture Controversy.": Why famously? Suggests POV.
  • This is one of those great bits that is remembered often from history class. This is where Henry IV got to stand in the snow begging the pope for forgiveness... it's famous. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I am familiar with the story, but question how famous it would be to the general reader. Among historians, perhaps. But again, no big deal. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• "During the 12th and 13th centuries, there was a series of conflicts…": Was or were? Were sounds more comfortable to me. Sarastro1 (talk)
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: Having read to the end, I am happy to support. This is an outstanding piece of work, and a credit to all those involved. Aside from a few minor quibbles, I had and have no issues. I'm pretty familiar with the first two thirds of this period, and just a little less so with the third and I think it covers the whole period in impressive depth and thoroughness. The prose is top-notch. Great stuff. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Excellent and comprehensive, a huge undertaking done well. This is not a field in which I am that knowledgeable beyond the basics, so most of this will be prose and formatting issues. A few quibbles, as you might expect me to do:

Lede

• "within the Church" I think you should make an appropriate link here.

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Later Roman Empire

• "For much of the 4th century, Roman society had reached a new, stable form". This reads a bit oddly. "Had reached" implies a one-time event, but it's being used here for an enduring status quo. Perhaps substitute "was in" or similar?

• I've changed this to "For much of the 4th century, Roman society stablized in a new form that differed..." does that work? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "were able to sack the city of Rome" I would make this more direct, "sacked the city of Rome".

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gaul needs a link.

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages

• "ncluding the popular assemblies that allowed free male tribal members more say in political matters" I'm not quite seeing the need for the word "more" here.

• I've clarified this with some changes above... "including the popular assemblies that allowed free male tribal members more say in political matters than was common in the Roman state." which makes it clear why "more" is needed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Much of the intellectual culture of the new kingdoms was also based on Roman intellectual traditions" Can the second use of "intellectual" be deleted?

• Changed per above to "Much of the scholarly and written culture of the new kingdoms was also based on Roman intellectual traditions." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Further complications were" Since only one is listed, and its consequences, perhaps "Further complications included"

• Fixed above. Now reads "A further complication..." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• You are inconsistent in your capitalisation of "Christian church"

• Fixed the one that needed fixing. One of the others refers to the actual church buildings (plural) and the other is in a quote, so I can't change it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• " public monuments and other public buildings" Perhaps delete public before monuments?

• Now reads "while civic monuments and other public buildings" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Early in "Trade and economy", the past tense seems to be abandoned for a couple of sentences, it strikes me as a bit jarring.

• I'm going to leave this to Malleus as I believe this is the correct way to refer to things that still exist in the archaelogical record... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  I think there is a slight dissonance there, because of the mix of tenses in that sentence. I've removed the trailing "... and have been mostly replaced by local products" which I think resolves the issue and is in any case redundant given what follows. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "much of the political power had devolved to the local lords" no big deal, but I don't think "had" is necessary at this distance.

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The importance of infantry and light cavalry began to decline during the early Carolingian period, with a corresponding dominance of military events by the elite." Is it worth mentioning that (as I understand it) that it was expensive to equip and maintain oneself as heavy cavalry, thus making it impractical for the non-wealthy to compete in this area?

• I thought about it but it seemed an unneeded detail on an article that is already rather large. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

High Middle Ages

• " or bringing new lands into production by offering incentives to the peasants who settled the new lands, also helped with the expansion of population" Perhaps "the new lands" (the last two words being repeats from earlier in the sentence) could be changed to "them" or "there", and rather than "helped with", have "contributed to"?

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Monks always remained a very small proportion of the population throughout the period, usually less than one percent of the total population." Suggest massage to eliminate one use of "population". And is one percent a proportion?

• Now reads "usually less than one percent of the total populace." Since one percent is one part of hundred Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the increase in crop yields" Since you have (to my recollection) only discussed this implicitly, in terms of the improved agricultural techniques, perhaps "increases in crop yields" without the "the".

• Now reads "enabled an increase in crop yields" Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "for several years after 1291" since that date is given earlier in the sentence, perhaps "for several years afterwards". Close call though.

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 06:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• " other than in the Holy Land" perhaps "elsewhere besides the Holy Land"

• Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "and by 1100 Roman law was being taught at Bologna." Should perhaps the link be to the university, rather than the city?

• I've piped the link - the exact foundation of the university is a bit nebulous and it's not clear that there was a true organized "university" before the charter in 1158. Safer to say "taught at"... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "as elites began to worry that monks were not adhering to the rules binding them to a strictly religious life." Is what is being said is that they were exerting worldly influence that might diminish the influence of nobles, perhaps it could be said more directly.

• no, the nobles were worried that the monks weren't adhering to their monastic rules, which would mean that the gifts given to the monks would not garner quite the spiritual benefits for their gifts. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• " In 1209, a crusade was preached against the Cathars, the Albigensian Crusade, which in combination with the medieval Inquisition, finally eliminated them." As I recall, the elimination was done by killing many of them. Perhaps this could be spelled out.

• Some were killed, yes, but most heretics that were dealt with by the actual inquisition didn't get killed, they had varying penances imposed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Late Middle Ages

• In the discussion of education, can something be said about how much of the population received even this basic literacy? And, if known, differences by gender? I would think it would be more common to educate a woman in the nobility, as the woman might have to serve as chatelaine?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'll try to find something, but I'm not sure there are good figures. Let me dig. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Most folks don't make guesses for the whole of Europe, either restricting their data to smaller regions or not putting numbers on it. I've found one guess for 1500 that I've put into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

PedroPVZ

• I respect the impressive work done here, really impressed actually. I think Portugal is consistently overlooked in the article, or arbitrarily placed in Spain, that redirects to the modern country. Also I still fail to see why the lead pic is the lead picture. So sentences also sound a bit POV especially in Modern misconceptions.

• "The basic Frankish silver coin was the denarius or denier, while the Anglo-Saxon version was called a penny. From these areas, the denier or penny spread throughout Europe during the centuries from 700 to 1000." dont know if it is true, I've doubts, but which countries use the Anglo-saxon penny?

The Germans etc used the pfennig, and there was the Swedish penning, but I'm not sure how much these drew from Anglo-Saxon rather than Carolingian example. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Muslims didnt controlled all the Iberian Peninsula. Their legacy in Northern Portugal and Galicia is not a proved fact. In fact, it has been consistently disproved.---Pedro (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It says "By 714, Islamic forces controlled much of the peninsula, a region they called Al-Andalus" which seems reasonable. Portugal as such did not exist at this point. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cryptic C62 Having just gotten back on the wiki after a frantic period of real-life shenaniganry, I am delighted to see such an ambitious effort here at FAC. Kudos and thanks go to the nominators for their efforts thus far. Some nitpicks from the later sections of the article:

• "the climatic change of the slow transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age" The change of the transition? Seems a bit redundant to me.

Now reads "The causes of the Great Famine included the slow transition from the Medieval Warm Period...." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "These troubles were followed in 1347 by the Black Death, a disease that spread throughout Europe during 1348, 1349, and 1350." Not sure why four consecutive years are spelled out here. How about: "These troubles were followed by the Black Death, a disease that spread throughout Europe during the late 1340s."

Went with "disease that spread throughout Europe during the following three years." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the trauma of the plague led to an increased piety throughout Europe, which manifested itself in ... the scapegoating of the Jews." I think you may want to go back to the source and make sure that this is actually what it says. The connection here seems a bit dubious to me.

To understand it, you'd have to have been a medieval peasant. Davies states "The psychological trauma ran deep. Though the CHurch as an institution was weakened, popular religosity increased. Charity foundations proliferated. Intense piety came into fashion: people felt that god's wrath must be placated. In Germany huge companies of flgellants flourished until suppressed on orders fro Avignon. Communal scapegoats were sought. In some places lepers were picked on; elsewhere the Jews were charged with poisoning the water. In September 1348 a trial of Jews at Chillon was supported by evidence extracted by torture. It was the signal for wholesale pogroms: in Basle, all the Jews were penned into wooden buildings and burned alive; similar scenes occurred in Stuttgart, Ulm, Speyer, and Dresden. Two thousand Jews were massacred in Strasbourg; in Mains as many as 12,000." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "throughout the rest of the 14th century; it continued to strike Europe throughout the rest of the Middle Ages." Repetitive phrasing. I suggest replacing one "throughout the rest of the" with "later in the", or even cutting out the second clause altogether.

• It continued to come back quite frequently, however. It was repetative, and it's important to note that it reappears throughout the rest of the period. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, but does the same piece of phrasing need to be used twice in one sentence? Surely there must be alternatives to "throughout the rest of the". What's wrong with "later in the"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Throughout implies more than once during the period... "later in" implies only once. Let's try "Conditions were further unsettled by the return of the plague throughout the rest of the 14th century; it continued to strike Europe periodically during the rest of the Middle Ages." Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Peasants in Western Europe mostly managed to..." It's not clear to me what "mostly managed" means. Most of the peasants managed to do this? Or the peasants were able to change most of their owed work, but not all of it?

• Now reads "Most peasants in Western Europe managed to change the work they had previously owed to their landlords into cash rents." which is hopefully clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "At first, the English ... won the battles of Crécy and Poitiers, captured the city of Calais and won control of much of France." The introductory phrase "at first" is usually used when describing something that was true but later changed. I don't see how that applies here. The French did not time travel to go back and change the results of the battles. I suggest dropping "at first".

• I've gone with "Early in the war the English under ..." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In the early 15th century, France once more teetered on the brink of dissolving" I'm not a fan of the colloquial "teetered on the brink", as it is unlikely to be understood by non-native English speakers. How about "came close to dissolving" instead?

• Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In modern-day Germany, the Empire continued" I hovered over "Empire" expecting the link to go to "German Empire" or something similar, and I was very surprised when it said "Holy Roman Empire" instead. This seems to be a Easter Egg link.

• It's the correct link, however. HRE lasts until Napoleon. The "German Empire" is actually Bismarkian, when Germany finally united in 1871 (I may have the date wrongish). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't mean to suggest that the link was incorrect. What I meant to say was that it is unclear where the link goes until one actually clicks on it. I would suggest spelling out "Holy Roman Empire" in its entirety to avoid confusion. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• But it's not called the "Holy Roman Empire" until later in its history. In this period, it's just "the Empire" or (sometimes) "the German Empire". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• "This is a legacy from both the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when scholars negatively contrasted their intellectual cultures with those medieval period." Missing words near the end? Should probably say "with those of the medieval period".

• Fixed from above. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Also, contrary to common belief, David Lindberg writes, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church..." " I think it would be very helpful to give a specific example of this rather than relying on common knowledge. The first name that pops into my head is Galileo, but he's not from the Middle Ages, is he...?

• Yea, he's 1600s. There really isn't an "example" ... so many folks think Galileo was medieval that that's the example they'll give. The whole period is full of popular misconceptions. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "One common misconception ... still very common" Is it common?

• Yes. It's still often taught in grade schools here in the states, even. I had to ... err... get medieval on my son's teacher one year when she tried to teach them that in social studies class. It wasn't pretty, but I won. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Colm This is an engaging whistle stop tour of a very long period of history and a thoroughly well researched contribution. I thought the prose was spoiled a little by several "with" expressions where a simple past tense might have sufficed. Here's few that examples (probably most of them):

• "with old pilgrimage sites such as Rome, Jerusalem, and Compostela seeing renewed visitation"
• "with some towns in Italy having more than one such enterprise"
• "with one estimate giving a literacy rate of 10 percent of males and 1 percent of females in 1500"
• "with more expensive engravings supplying a wealthier market with a variety of images."
• "with his brother Robert I becoming king for 922–923"

  I think I got all those, but I'll take a look through later and see if there are any others I've missed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This one I found odd for other reasons

• • In the late 13th century new land and sea routes were pioneered with the Far East"

    Changed to "In the late 13th century new land and sea routes to the Far East were pioneered ...", which is what I think was meant. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Partial comments from Espresso Addict As a complete ignoramus on the topic, so far I've found the article pretty readable and comprehensible, and well illustrated -- bravo!

• I agree the lead image feels atypical. Is there mileage in trying a composite of three images, representing early, middle & late periods?

I disagree. This is a beautiful image, which is perfect for this article. Please do not change it. Graham Colm (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Throughout, there is occasional use of -ise as well as -ize endings. I know some words must use -ise in UK English, but others seem mistaken (eg proselytise is spelled both ways). Also need standardisation on use of em rule vs spaced en rule for parenthetical dashes.
  • I'll leave this for Malleus - he's the expert on British spelling. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

    I think we're consistent now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• In the lead, I got a bit confused over the number of different names for periods, especially whether "Classical" is the same as "Antiquity".
  • Standardized on Antiquity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Development of the concept: Should "mediaeval" have an ae ligature?
  • It is about half and half with or without, and since it's easier to type without... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Start and end dates: What is "Romance-speaking"? Can it at least be linked here? (Actually linked where defined under New societies section.)
  • I've linked it. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Later Roman Empire, para 1: can "curial" be defined as well as linked? How does it relate to "western Roman elites" under New societies, para. 1?
  • Now reads "decline in numbers of the curial, or landowning, class" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Later Roman Empire, para 2: "did not resolve the problems it was facing: excessive taxation, a declining birthrate, and pressures on its frontiers, among others." -- slightly unclear what "among others" refers to (frontiers or problems); can this be rephrased?
  • Actually, it means that there were other, less important, problems. Suggestions on how best to word this welcome. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Later Roman Empire, para 3: where (roughly) is Thracia? Possibly also clarify Gaul, though probably better known.
  • It's in the Balkans - which I added. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Later Roman Empire, para 4: "emperor of the west" is there a reason this is sometimes capitalised?
  • When it refers to the title, it should be capitalized. Malleus? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

    I think it's correct that it's not capitalised as it's referring to a job title, not to any specific emperor, but there was a following "Emperor of the West" which I've switched to lower case for consistency. I also wouldn't have capitalised "Empire", but that's another story". Malleus Fatuorum 19:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• New societies, para 1: "military strongmen" -- strongmen seems informal?
  • It's the general term used by the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto: what is the difference between kingdoms and polities?
  • A polity is any political state. A kingdom is a type of polity. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto: why did the supply of slaves weaken? Is weaken the correct word?
  • Weakened is correct and the reasons why are probably a bit too complex to go into in an introductory/overview article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Byzantine survival, para 1: can Hagia Sophia be defined in the text?
  • Not easily. It's a big church that had a ton of influence throughout the rest of history and is now a huge mosque in Istanbul. At some point, I have to allow the links to speak for themselves and not clutter the text with explanations for everything. It's clear from the context that it's a building - if you want to know what, that's what the link is for. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Byzantine survival, para 2: "It began small" seems informal?
  • Really? I don't think I need to use "big" words just to use big words, because, then will you be asking me to define every big word? Sorry, if that's a bit cranky, but this is an overview and I can't be defining every single thing that's linked or the article would be twice the size it currently is. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Rise of Islam, para 1: repetition of 632 date for death of Muhammad.
  • Removed second mention. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto: "Islamic forces conquered much of the Eastern Empire and Persia ... and the Iberian Peninsula" -- bit confusing, as Iberian Peninsula is in the west.
  • Yes, well, the whole sentence is "After his death, Islamic forces conquered much of the Eastern Empire and Persia, starting with Syria in 634–635 and reaching Egypt in 640–641, Persia between 637 and 642, North Africa in the later 7th century and the Iberian Peninsula in 711." which makes it pretty obvious that they swept along the north part of Africa to the Iberian Peninsula. The map should help make it clear also. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Trade and economy, para 1: "African products are no longer found in Western Europe" tense? Is this referring to archaeological finds?
  • Yes. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto: why is pottery complex?
  • I do not know why archaeologists consider pottery complex, they do, however. I would assume that simple goods are those that do not get any change, such as foods or salt. More complex products would be those that need more work to make or to ship. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Again, As a traded product, pottery is much more complex than basic commodities, if only because you have find designs that distant markets like. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Church and monasticism, para 2: "The register, or archived copies of the letters, of Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) survives, and of those more than 850 letters, the vast majority were concerned with affairs in Italy or Constantinople." -- seems a complex sentence for a simple idea.
  • Well, I could say "The register of Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) survives with the vast majority were concerned with affairs in Italy or Constantinople." but I'm pretty sure someone would want to know what a register was and how many letters there were... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

"The vast majority of over 850 archived copies of letters from Pope Gregory the Great (pope 590–604) concerned affairs in Italy or Constantinople." -loses several words and 4 commas! Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The three sections about Carolingian empire probably should be combined, possibly with lower level section headings. The end of Breakup of the Carolingian Empire section seems to refer to wider events, and perhaps should be relocated.
  • The Carolingian empire embraced most of Western Europe - it's breakup impacted all of Western Europe. We've already got a pretty complex TOC, I'd rather not get any smaller subheadings. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Carolingian Europe, para 2: "Carloman's minor son" -- I assume this means son who had yet to reach his majority, but it sounds as if there was a major son as well.
  • Changed to "young" Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Breakup of the Carolingian Empire: the map legend refers to the Treaty of Meerssen which doesn't appear in the text.
  • I wasn't aware that everything mentioned in a caption must be referred to in the text, but I've removed the treaty mentions. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it does in fact. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Military and technological developments, para 1: "cataphract-type soldiers" -- can you define this in the text?
  • Now reads "The creation of heavily-armoured cataphract-type soldiers as cavalry was an important feature..." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

    Actually it now reads "heavily armoured", as there's no adjective after an adverb. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Will try to read the remainder later. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's exciting to see an article like this at FAC.

• Should the "Medieval" in the opening line be capitalised?

I think so, as a defined period, like Early Modern Period or "the Neolithic". Not when used as a adjective. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• There's some inconsistency as to whether it's "romance laguages" or "Romance languages". Also, you link at the second mention, but not the first.

should all be "R" in my book Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, now fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "In Anglo-Saxon society the lack of many child rulers meant a lesser role for women as queen mothers, but this was compensated for by the increased role played by abbesses of monasteries." I don't understand what is being said here.

It's a bit fiddly, but in A-S society inheritance of the crown by the next male (let alone female) heir was usually not automatic, & boys tended to get shoved aside by their uncles etc. So no queen mothers in a regent-type role. But top-drawer ladies could be very powerful as abbesses of a distinctive A-S type of paired convents and monasteries *(we must have a link for these), where the abbess was usually top dog. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "By the end of the 7th century, under the impact of the Muslim conquests, African products are no longer found in Western Europe." Why suddenly into present tense?

Because it's talking about modern archeology. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The 7th century was a tumultuous period of civil wars between Austrasia and Neustria." How can they be civil wars if they're between different kingdoms? Or did both kingdoms experience separate civil wars? Am I misunderstanding something here?

Perhaps best cut, but they were still sort of supposed to be part of the same Frankish polity. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I've cut the "civil" here. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• There seems to be some inconsistency with whether you refer to areas as (for instance) "present-day Wales and Scotland" or "France".

Is this bad though? Does it destroy the prose or make things unclear? Sometimes I think we pursue "consistency" too much at the price of prose or clarity. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which limited the usefulness of cavalry as shock troops, but it was still possible for cavalry to use shock tactics in battle, especially when the saddle was built up in front and behind to allow greater support to the rider." This is going to be unclear to people not familiar with the subject matter

One of those areas where I can only go into so much detail before we bog things down. If I don't mention this, though, I'm not being complete. Suggestions on any "short" additions that could clarify? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Linking shock troops and possibly clarifying why they weren't useful as them would help. J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Linked now and reads "During the early invasion period, the stirrup had not been introduced into warfare, which limited the usefulness of cavalry as shock troops because it was not possible to put the full force of the horse and rider behind blows struck by the rider." and I cut the bit about the saddle being built up as unneeded detail. Better? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Much clearer. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the end of the section on the Early Middle Ages, you have a picture depicting naval warfare- however, naval technology/naval warfare are not mentioned in the prose

Removed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've read half-way down the article, and it's looking great so far. I'll be sure to finish the review later. J Milburn (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Continuing my reading-

• "In central and northern Italy and in Flanders, the rise of towns that were, to a degree, self-governing, stimulated economic growth and created an environment for new types of trade associations." Something up with the commas in this sentence.

  I don't think we need to be tripping over any of those commas except for the one after Flanders. Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a non-English word, should "Reconquista" be italicised?
• Is Gesta Regum worth a redlink?
• I'd be inclined to say that Anselm of Canterbury is worth a mention when you discuss scholasticism. He's been called the founder of the movement, and, while it's not my area of philosophy, he's the second name I'd give after Aquinas.
• "when scholars negatively contrasted their intellectual cultures with those of the medieval period." They're positively contrasting their cultures, surely?

Very well written- seems to be a fantastic summary. J Milburn (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support everything seems in order from my two specialties (sources and images) --Guerillero | My Talk 19:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I started to object, writing I have a concern over the name/scope of this. This is an article about history of Europe during Middle Ages, not the Middle Ages. The lead even acknowledges this, stating "In European history, the Middle Ages, or Medieval period, lasted from the 5th to the 15th century." Look at the structure, it is a chronological history of Europe during Middle Ages. Where's the section on economy of Middle Ages? Culture and society? Granted, Middle Ages is a historical topic, but history also includes the fields of economic history, changes in social norms, and so on. Then I looked at the article again and realized it does cover those topics quite well :) This lives me with a some comments which prevents me from supporting:
• concerns over linking. The first time word "Poland" is mentioned, it is not linked; it is linked only on its third use (to Kingdom of Poland (1385–1569)). Please add a link to Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) on the first appearance. Lithuania is mentioned only once, linked to Lithuania, whereas the Grand Duchy of Lithuania would likely be more appropriate.
  • I"ve linked to Poland in the Early Middle Ages for the first mention, and Kingdom of Poland (1025–1385) on the second mention, which covers a broader spectrum of Polish history, I think. Also fits better into the chronological sectioning. Linked to the Grand Duchy. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• moving on, the article links a number of "state name in the Middle Ages" articles, but not Poland in the Middle Ages. Please add that, and see if there are any others missing.
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also recommend changing the link to German history to Germany in the Middle Ages, even if it is just a redirect now I am sure eventually it will be a full article
  • Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
• While the article usually does good job with the main/further info templates, I am not happy with the "see also: Wars of Scottish Independence" in one of the sections. It seems much more minor than the other links of that level. Surely it could be incorporated as a sentence? Oh, I'd also suggest converting the other see also templates to main or further.
  • I actually prefer "see also" rather than further and have changed them accordingly. Also removed the Scottish bit. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree re Scotland. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if the article wouldn't benefit from a brief overview what was going on elsewhere in the world at that time?

Gulp! Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think so, honestly. The actual interactions between Europe and the Far East or Africa are pretty minimal - they mainly relate to the actual Middle East rather than the Far East. It's a pretty insular period. And the poor article is already huge! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please ping me for talk if my response would be urgently needed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I shall deal with the rest of these (which are generally quite useful) tomorrow sometime. I've got a plant sale to go to wayyyyy too early in the morning. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from the Duke of Waltham: I see I'm not too late to the party... Huge article, and it took me a while to find the time to read it properly, though you have little reason to care about that because I do not intend to support: I reiterate my view that, until I have submitted a FAC of my own, I cannot in good conscience vote on one. What I can do is provide yet another pair of eyes to comb through the prose, and I have found a few issues, which generally range from minor to negligible. (Actually, they turned out to be far more numerous than I expected, so apologies for posting this exhaustive list of minutiae so late in the process.) I have already made several minor style corrections—with this edit—so please don't think that I have brought up every stray comma, dash and hyphen here.

The article itself was beautiful—I simply cannot praise it enough. I was particularly excited to read the introduction, as I always am with high-quality, broad-scope articles; indeed, I find that few experiences in Wikipedia can be compared with reading a well-written lead on an important, well-known subject. (My vote of confidence for the impressive lead image, by the way.)

So, here we go:

• Although the map shows that the Balkans belong to the Eastern Roman Empire, the text does not actually mention in which half Valens was emperor.
• "with tribal items often modelled on Roman objects" – "noun plus -ing" phrasing ("being" implied), avoidable with "and tribal items were often modelled on Roman objects". This would entail a change in tense, but it doesn't look problematic to me in this case.

  Done. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• punctuation detail: in "The Burgundians settled in Gaul, and after an earlier realm was destroyed by the Huns in 436, formed a new kingdom", wouldn't the "and" be best placed before the comma (thus treating the commas like dashes in this sentence), or is it purely a matter of preference?

  The problem I think is with the second comma, so I've slightly rejigged that and the following sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "futher complication" is found twice in the same paragraph; replacing the second instance with "another complication" would be a mild remedy for this repetition. (There is also the similar "further compilation" in the previous paragraph, so a more extensive change might be desirable.)

  Changed the second occurrence to "an additional complication", and "further compilation" to "another compilation". Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with the aristocratic culture focusing on great feasts held in halls" – "noun plus -ing" was declared fixed but is still there. Perhaps "and the aristocratic culture now focused on great feasts held in halls" would be acceptable, although someone might find a better phrasing.

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  And very elegantly, too, I should say. Question: am I supposed to start striking bullets now? They are only comments, after all; I am not requiring anyone to address them. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  I really don't know to be honest, but it seems like make-work to me and I rarely bother. If there's something I or Ealdgyth or Johnbod claim is fixed but you don't agree that it has been then just say so. The default for me is that if you don't object then it's fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "a pattern of large, contiguous blocks of land were the norm" – a pattern "was"; there is also much repetition of "patterns", although that probably can't be helped

  Changed to "... large contiguous blocks of land were the norm", which also gets rid of one of the "pattern"s. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "These differences allowed for a wide variety of peasant societies with some being dominated by aristocratic landholders and others having a great deal of autonomy." – "noun plus -ing" again; "some of which were dominated ... while others had" would solve the problem, I hope, satisfactorily

  Changed to "... some dominated by aristocratic landholders and others having a great deal of autonomy". Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Officially, they were tolerated, if subject to conversion efforts, and at times..." – lots of commas; the removal of the first would make for a more unified sentence

  Done. Malleus Fatuorum 23:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Umayyad descendants took over the Iberian Peninsula, the Aghlabids control of North Africa, and the Tulunids became rulers of Egypt." – "assumed control"? ("took control" would be repetitive)
• "Franks traded timber, furs, swords and slaves in return for silks..." – I have added a few missing serial commas on my own, but I'm not sure whether the missing one here would introduce any ambiguity, so I've left it alone.

  I'd say a serial comma there would be unnecessarily fussy and intrusive. Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "African goods stopped being imported into Europe, first disappearing from the interior of Europe" – I don't believe replacing the second instance of "Europe" with "continent" would create any ambiguity.

  I don't think we need either "Europe" or "continent", as the context tells us what it's the interior of, so I've dropped "of Europe". Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The replacement of goods from long-range trade with local products was a trend throughout the old Roman lands that happened in the Early Middle Ages." – just a thought: if the emphasis is intended to be geographical rather than temporal (also judging from the next sentence), why not switch the "throughout" and "that happened" clauses? The latter's position in the end makes it look a bit tacked on.
• "the western branch becoming the Roman Catholic Church and the eastern branch becoming the Orthodox Church" – no "with", but still "noun plus -ing"; I don't know whether "became" or "would become" is more appropriate, which is exactly the ambiguity supplied by this construct

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Charles, more often known as Charles the Great or Charlemagne, in 774 embarked upon a programme..." – Perhaps the year would be better off after the verb?

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Italy was drawn into the Ottonian sphere by the late 10th century, after a period of instability, with Otto III (r. 996–1002) spending much of his later reign in Italy." – here the potential for ambiguity of the "noun plus -ing" construction becomes apparent, as Tony might remark: does Otto spend much of his later reign in Italy because it was drawn into the Ottonian sphere, or is it the reverse? The dates suggest the former, but not every reader will make this inference.

  Changed to "By the late 10th century Italy had been drawn into the Ottonian sphere after a period of instability; Otto III (r. 996–1002) spent much of his later reign in the kingdom." Malleus Fatuorum 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Monks were also the authors of new works, including history, theology, and other subjects, written by authors such as Bede (d. 735), a native of northern England who wrote in the late 7th and early 8th century." – This sentence is a bit circular (monks were the authors of new works, written by authors); my personal preference would be for something like "...subjects; one such author was Bede...", though I don't claim it would be optimal.
• "The period saw an increase in literacy, developments in the arts, architecture and jurisprudence, as well as liturgical and scriptural studies." – a minor point about this sentence's structure: if the period saw developments in liturgical and scriptural studies, rather than simply their existence (or coming into existence), then an "and" would seem appropriate after "literacy", and probably an "in" before "liturgical". If not, perhaps that ought to be made clearer.
• "...and finds such as the Anglo-Saxon burial at Sutton Hoo and the hoards of Gourdon from Merovingian France, Guarrazar from Visigothic Spain and Nagyszentmiklos near Byzantine territory." – there's something unusual about this double "and" structure; is it a literary flourish or an error? Malleus?

Not a literary flourish, & not exactly an error that I can see. Sutton Hoo is a burial, but the others are just hoards so they need their own list. Would "and hoards such as those of ..." help? Any suggestions welcome. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I failed to notice the use of "hoards", which made me think there was something wrong with the sentence. I no longer think any change is needed here. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, increasing the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops." – I know it was at another reviewer's suggestion that this sentence was changed, but I don't believe the result is grammatically sound... I am struggling with coming up with alternatives, though; my best idea is the implicitly self-referential "Another change was the introduction of the stirrup, with its associated/resulting increase to the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops."

  Changed to "... which increased the effectiveness of cavalry as shock troops". Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with more of them in the regions of Southern Europe than in the north" – "noun and -ing" ("being" implied); perhaps I am overreacting, but wouldn't "most of whom were in Southern Europe" be more elegant? Or is it a misrepresentation of the source? (Actually, whether my suggestion is adopted or not, "the regions of" seems superfluous, unless a singular "region" is intended, meaning "in the general area".)
• "Women in the Middle Ages were officially required to be subordinate to some male, whether their father, husband, or other kinsmen." – I think "kinsman" would be preferable over the plural, which implies that they might be subordinate to more than one male

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "the rise of towns that were, to a degree, self-governing, stimulated..." – I am not sure about the comma after "self-governing"

  Neither was I. Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Tens of thousands of people from all levels of society mobilised across Europe, and captured Jerusalem in 1099." – I find that comma unhelpful.

  So do I, removed. Malleus Fatuorum 15:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note "Y" seems a bit out of place, considering the earlier introduction to the military orders.
• "Although the Templars and Hospitallers took part in the Spanish crusades, Spanish military religious orders were also founded similar to the Templars and Hospitallers; most had become part of..." – Can't we avoid the repetition of the two orders' names here? Perhaps something like "...crusades, they also found imitators in newly founded Spanish military religious orders, most of which had become..."

  Changed to "... similar Spanish military religious orders were founded

• "Along with the still dominant heavy cavalry" – hyphenate "still dominant"?

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gunpowder was known in Europe by the mid-13th century with a recorded use in European warfare by the English against the Scots in 1304" – "noun and (implied) -ing"; the simple way out is by use of a semi-colon, and I think a shift to the active voice would improve the result: "...by the mid-13th century; a recorded use in European warfare was by the English against the Scots in 1304, although they used it merely as an explosive and not as a weapon.")
• "Metalwork continued to be the most prestigious form of art, with Limoges enamel an option for reliquaries and crosses." – again the surreptitious form of "noun and -ing", the conversion of which to the past tense seems to reveal some sort of omission. Was Limoges enamel a popular option for reliquaries and crosses, was it restricted to these applications, or was it simply the most notable type of metalwork in this period?

Yes; no but they are probably the most numerous survivals; ho-hum arguably (but I'm not trying to argue so). Not entirely sure I see the problem here; obviously I'm trying to cram a complex picture into a short phrase. Is "popular option" any help? One could add to or qualify "reliquaries and crosses" I suppose, at the risk of padding. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Simply mentioning that Limoges enamel was an option (one of many) poses the question of why this specific method is mentioned here; indeed, it seems to assume that the method is familiar to the general reader, who would therefore be aware of its importance. On the other hand, saying that the method was popular or otherwise notable makes it clear to the reader why it is mentioned in the passage. Side-stepping the grammar issue at the same time, one could write "Metalwork continued to be the most prestigious form of art, and Limoges enamel was a popular option for reliquaries and crosses." If it was really popular, one might place more emphasis and use a semi-colon, followed by "Limoges enamel, in particular, was a popular option for reliquaries and crosses." Other options might be available; I am not the expert on either the subject or the capabilities of the English language, to be honest. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've gone with "with Limoges enamel a popular and relatively affordable option for objects such as reliquaries and crosses" - the cheapness was a key element in its popularity. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Its inclusion makes more sense now, thanks. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...the Cistercians. The Cistercians..." and in the same paragraph "...laymen. Laymen...", as well as "...monks. Monks..." (higher in the article), would ideally be avoided, though I realise this might not be possible in some cases. I have no helpful suggestions this time.

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I favour the use of "former" and "latter" but I am loath to introduce them into articles because I don't know to what extent people may find them confusing, so I am happy to be validated in this case. Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which resulted in the average annual temperature for Europe declining during the 14th century" – "noun and -ing"; I propose "...in the decline of the average annual temperature for Europe during..."

  Changed to "... which resulted in a declining average annual temperature for Europe during the 14th century ..." Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Most peasants in Western Europe ... by the end of the period." – These two sentences might beneficially be joined with a semi-colon.

  Maybe the text has been changed since your comment, but I can't find that in the current article. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's in the "Society and economy" sub-section. (No time to log in.) 2.85.9.226 (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  Still can't find it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  I can't see how, unless you included the ellipsis in the search. Here are the two sentences in full: "Most peasants in Western Europe managed to change the work they had previously owed to their landlords into cash rents.[260] The percentage of serfs amongst the peasantry declined from a high of 90 to closer to 50 per cent by the end of the period.[160]" Waltham, The Duke of 16:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "...governments. Governments also attempted to legislate a return to the economic conditions existing prior to the Black Death, partly at the urging of landlords." – Apart from the repetition of "governments", the "also" doesn't seem entirely justified by the context. I am thinking of something along the lines of "For their part, governments attempted to legislate a return..."

  Rewritten. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Kings profited from warfare by gaining land and extended royal legislation throughout their kingdoms." – I am not sure I understood the second part of this sentence perfectly. The kings gained from having their laws take effect across a greater part of their realms?
• In the second paragraph of "State resurgence" we have "at the end of the Wars ... the Wars had ... the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War. The early Hundred Years' War..."; perhaps alternating the two terms would improve the paragraph a little?
• "...ecclesiastical officials convened in Constance in 1414, and in 1415 the council deposed..." – It's just a personal preference, but "in the following year" seems quite natural here.

  It does, changed as per your suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "although subject to a crusade being called against it" – "noun and -ing"; I thought simply removing "being called" would do the trick, but "although the target of a crusade" seems even better.

  I agree, changed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "with legal codes being promulgated in countries..." – the same; I recommend the use of the past tense after "and"

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Would a serial comma before "and Giovanni Boccaccio" be confusing?

  It would, because it would imply that only Boccaccio was in Italy, not Dante or Petrarch. Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• "After his death, exploration continued; Bartolomeu Dias..." – wouldn't a full colon be better here?

  I don't think so, as what follows the semicolon is a full sentence. Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

  That's interesting; I hadn't realised colons were best-used to introduce sentence fragments. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm, take your time... I am not objecting, after all, so you don't actually need to adopt any of my suggestions. I do intend to return for follow-up comments, though, should they be required. Waltham, The Duke of 04:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: the lead says that "the Carolingian Empire endured until the 9th century, when it succumbed to the pressures of invasion", but the article seems to place more importance on the various civil wars that weakened and divided the empire. I realise there isn't much room for manoeuvres in the lead, but the emphasis on this point doesn't seem entirely consistent with that given in the article. Perhaps I'm missing something. Waltham, The Duke of 02:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Kudos for taking on such a huge topic; the article has markedly improved, and you've managed to keep it relatively concise. I don't have time to read through it thoroughly, but I found myself missing a reference to the influence of the Islamic world on medieval science. Could you add a sentence or two to "Rise of Islam" or "Intellectual life", possibly drawing on the sources in Science in the Middle Ages or Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe? Lesgles (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've roughly covered topics in the amount they are covered in a number of overview histories - the best place to delve into the whole concept of whether or not Islamic learning influenced medieval European science is probably in those more specialized articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also note that there already is something about the influences - "Among the results of the Greek and Islamic influence on this period in European history was the replacement of Roman numerals with the decimal positional number system and the invention of algebra, which allowed more advanced mathematics. Astronomy advanced following the translation of Ptolemy's Almagest from Greek into Latin in the late 12th century. Medicine was also studied, especially in southern Italy, where Islamic medicine influenced the school at Salerno." is right there in intellectual life. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I didn't see those sentences, and that somewhat resolves my worry that Islam might come across as no more than a conquering antagonist. I would be even happier, though if there were a brief mention of Averroes and Aristotle, of translations from Arabic, or the cultural life of Al-Andalus. From your sources, for instance, see Davies pp. 253–54, 349 or Oxford History of Medieval Europe, pp. 194–95. That's up to you, though. Lesgles (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

More comments

• The small second-para of New societies features "kingdom" eight times.
• The (r. 1189–1199) and (d. 1085) things hamper readability and elegance of the prose, and should be used sparingly; i.e. when they add to the readers' understanding. Right now they are used everywhere a ruler is named, even when doing so is redundant. Example: "Louis the Pious (r. 814–840), was still alive by 813. Just before Charlemagne died in 814, he crowned Louis as his successor. Louis's reign of 26 years"—here the bracketed reign is clearly redundant to the text that follows.
• 1111–1125 → 1111–25 per WP:MOSYEAR (throughout).
• Is that timeline necessary? It is uncited (not all the dates in it are backed up by the prose/references), contradictory to the text (which gives a range of dates for end of the MA, none of which is the 1450 of the timeline), unnecessary (the MA are divided into three, you don't need a timeline for three ages) and kinda ugly (large vertical white space created + the text on the image looks pixelated and clunky).
• "Missionary efforts to Scandinavia during the 9th and 10th centuries helped strengthen the growth of kingdoms there. Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian kingdoms gained power and territory in the course of the 9th and 10th centuries"—can these near-identical sentences be combined?
• "the Moravians, Bulgars, Bohemians, Poles, Magyars, and Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'. These conversions contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'"—is the repetition of the identical-sounding peoples and kingdoms avoidable?
• Several common English words are overlinked in Technology and military.

Most of these are minor comments, but I hope you especially consider the second point. The bracketed date ranges have a jarring appearance, and introduce an unnecessary level of detail for such a broad article.122.172.22.100 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr.

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 01:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!^(talk) 01:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ed!. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I have the following comments:

• As I noted in the A class review, this article really should include references to Thomas Ricks' recent book The Generals, which provides fairly detailed analysis of Schwarzkopf's generalship during the 1990-91 period. Ricks strongly disagrees with the notion of the 1991 war being "decisive", and argues that Schwarzkopf's flawed war plan contributed to a fairly poor outcome given the extent of the Allied military force's superiority. This may not be a consensus view, but Ricks is a high-profile author and his book has attracted a fair bit of attention.
  • I added a summary of his thinking in the legacy section. Next to no one else comes to the same conclusions, and until I see more books echoing these sentiments I'm hesitant to include more. —Ed!^(talk) 03:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That looks good (and is an appropriate weight IMO), but 'said' should be replaced with 'wrote' and/or argued Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• The material on Schwarzkopf's relationship to the Media during the Gulf War wrongly argues that he encouraged free-ranging media coverage of the war. In fact, the media operated under significant restrictions which were loosened in subsequent wars.
  • Added a little more clarity on this. —Ed!^(talk) 04:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • This is now contradictory - it starts by saying that Schwarzkopf gave the media considerable access, but then states that the media was tightly controlled. I think that there are academic-type studies of the role of the media in the Gulf War which would be worth looking for. I'm also not sure what's meant by "In spite of this, several high-profile reports publicized the CENTCOM strategy" - does this mean that his war plans were leaked to the media? Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• "with the 6th Infantry Division in Allied-occupied Germany" - the Allied occupation of Germany ended well before 1959
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you sure that the 6th Infantry Division was stationed in West Berlin? I think that you many have meant West Germany. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• " In July 1960, Schwarzkopf was assigned as aide-de-camp to Brigadier General Charles Johnson, who commanded the Berlin Brigade.[36] Schwarzkopf was stationed in West Berlin." - this could be compressed into a single sentence (the Berlin Brigade was stationed only in West Berlin)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Why did Schwarzkopf volunteer to leave a teaching position at West Point to serve in South Vietnam?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "the 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam were demoralized and in poor condition, racked with rampant drug use and disciplinary problems as well as a lack of support from home" - all elements of this sentence are disputed by modern historians, and it's clearly inappropriate to use this as a blanket statement concerning the state of the military in 1969 (the general view these days is that the Army was largely in good shape at this time, but things got much worse later on).
  • Reworded this. The sources heavily support that Schwarzkopf's battalion was in this condition, though I avoided making statements about the rest of the force. —Ed!^(talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That looks good. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• "He immediately established an extremely rigorous training regimen" - why? Was the division poorly trained when he assumed command?
  • The sources don't necessarily say the division was poorly trained, only that he immediately established very rigorous training for it. —Ed!^(talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "and became well known for his hard driving leadership of the division." - 'well known' among whom? Phrases like "hard driving leadership" are also somewhat problematic - they're essentially military cliches (no-one is opposed to 'hard driving leadership'!), but are unclear - can you say what his command style and approach involved?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Among his duties, he sat in on arms reduction talks" - 'sitting in' on a meeting isn't an active role, so was this really part of his duties?
  • No, he was just an observer. He didn't really contribute, but it's one of the few specific duties he did that I can find in sources. —Ed!^(talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Being an observer is different to just sitting in on a meeting - observers have a clear role, while people who sit in on a meeting are typically there as they're interested in the topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • He played no role. Clarified this. —Ed!^(talk) 23:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
        • That didn't address my comment at all. Just say that he observed the talks as part of the posting (presuming that's what your sources say). Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I've reworded to that effect. —Ed!^(talk) 16:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The operation was a learning experience for Schwarzkopf, who saw the need to develop greater cooperation between the services for future joint operations" - what did he do to implement this during his time as a senior commander? (there's nothing on the topic at present)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you expand on what this involved? The development of 'jointness' was (rightly) a big deal in the US military at this time, and Schwarzkopf seems to have been good at it given his performance in the Gulf War. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Added more. —Ed!^(talk) 00:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure how the generic material you've added relates to Schwarzkopf. At present the article doesn't provide any details on what Schwarzkopf's response actually involved. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
          • I really can't find anything with direct, attributable actions he took to change policy, only that he saw a need for it to change, and then it changed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Schwarzkopf devised an operational plan, dubbed "Operation Desert Storm," to be based on speed and mobility, using the desert warfare strategies based on British commander Bernard Montgomery's defeat of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein in World War II" - this doesn't seem accurate. Monty's overall strategy at El Alamein was to use infantry and artillery to slowly work through the Axis defences, and then unleash his armoured forces. It didn't work as the defences were tougher than had been expected, and the armoured forces ended up being used to support the infantry. The slow pursuit of the defeated Axis forces after the battle is generally considered to have been a major failure.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That material seems unchanged. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• The material on the Gulf War hardly mentions the fact that Schwarzkopf was leading an amazingly diverse international coalition. How did he manage cross-national relations? (which would have been one of his main tasks)
  • I've added a paragraph on this in the 'Desert Shield' section. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "Most of the allied forces, however, were not combat veterans, and the allied commanders wanted to fight cautiously to minimize casualties." - almost none of the US troops were combat veterans either, and Schwarzkopf was also highly risk-adverse (hence the lengthy air campaign before the ground forces went into action and the cancellation of plans to conduct an opposed amphibious landing in Kuwait). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
• "He oversaw the strikes from his war room in Riyadh amid a flurry of press coverage" - the media was in the war room?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Within 90 hours, his force had destroyed 42 of 50 Iraqi Army divisions at a cost of about 125 killed and 200 wounded among American troops" - what about the non-American casualties? Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• As an extra point, "His accomplishments were praised in a manner much differently from commanders who returned from the Vietnam War and the Korean War" reads awkwardly (and what was this difference?). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I've found a few books to cover these points. I'll be adding them over the next few days. Going to have the same problem with Ricks that I mentioned in the ACR, my only access to the book is through Google Books which has no page numbers, so the pages will be a total guess for those refs. —Ed!^(talk) 06:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. I've responded to all of your points and made a bunch of fixes. Let me know what you think. —Ed!^(talk) 15:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've just struck my oppose, and have no objections to this article's promotion and would be pleased to see it on the main page. However, I don't think that I'm going to support promotion either I'm afraid Ed. Unlike many of your other efforts, this article never really gets under the skin of its subject (who is a much-written about person) and I think that there's probably scope for further improvements, particularly on the material covering his senior leadership which never really digs deeply into what he did and why. But as I said, I have no objections to promotion. Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• All dodmedia.osd.mil links don't appear to be working
  • Added new source or replaced each image. —Ed!^(talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Ribbon_numeral_9.png appears to be a wiki-designed image (specifically for barnstars) - are we sure it match es the official numeral?
  • Removed it to be sure. —Ed!^(talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:Legion_Honneur_GO_ribbon.svg: uploader is unlikely to hold copyright to the original ribbon design, same with File:VNCivilActionsRibbon.jpg
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:ViPaBa.jpg: need copyright for original badge
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• File:General_H._Norman_Schwarzkopf_Congressional_Gold_Medal_(reverse).jpg: 3D work, does given tag cover medal, photo, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Both. Photo of a PD creation. —Ed!^(talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Ebionites

Nominator(s): Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

This GA article has recently been through a 2nd peer review to prepare it for FAC, and it is now ready for FA review. Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by ColonelHenry

I haven't taken an in-depth view of the article (more to come, possibly), but on first glance, I am not quite taken with the different two different systems of notes/citations. From how I see it, this would run afoul of criterion 2c's call for "consistent citations"--and I think it a salient point considering notes, citations, sources and further reading takes up 60% of the article's spatial arrangement.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point. In fact, I originally had the sfn citations outside of and immediately preceding the notes. I decided to embed them at the beginning of the notes for the following reasons: (1) it gives the main body a cleaner look, (2) the sfn citations are just as visible whether they are inside or outside the notes, and (3) there is no ambiguity about which sfn citations and notes belong together. Thanks for your comment. Ignocrates (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, (4) I used the reference format of the feature article George Harrison as a template for this article. Ignocrates (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Although the reference format chosen would not be my own preference, it seems to me wholly proper. Separating informative footnotes from verifiabilty citations is good practice (letting the reader know whether clicking on a ref will bring up a nugget of information or just a citation) and I don't think there is any conflict here with the "consistent citation" criterion. – Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Support – I peer reviewed this article. My few, not very substantial, queries were dealt with then. The text seems to me to be well-shaped, balanced in content, very readable and (so far as I am capable of judging) comprehensive. An additional image might enhance the look of the page, but perhaps there's nothing relevant to this very specialised topic. As I have mentioned, above, the referencing strikes me as fine, and is both full and varied in range of sources. In my opinion this article meets the criteria for FA. It is a credit to the nominator and to Wikipedia (I have done a spot of Googling and found nothing else on the web anything like as good on the subject). – Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment Capitalization and links seem erratic. Why "East" of the Jordan (twice) for example? Bible refs would be better linked via the templates we have. There's some repetition, & probably not enough background context. Johnbod (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

"East of the Jordan" is a place-name and a synonym for the Perea (region). As for the rest, please add more detail to your quick comments and I will attempt to address them. Ignocrates (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no sign it is capitalized in google books or JSTOR, even in things like this. I suppose we have West Bank so East Bank might be acceptable. I think there's enough detail to be getting on with frankly. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I changed East --> east. What else, specifically? Ignocrates (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to play that game. It says "Bible refs would be better linked via the templates we have". I suggest you read through the not-very-long article looking for the points mentioned above. Frankly it's not a subject I'm very interested in, probably not enough to read it through again correcting them, which would take less time than laying them all out here. If people can't be bothered to bring articles to a near-FA level of polish before FAC, not all reviewers are willing to do the basics. I've done the 2nd para, which may explain why I'm not going to do the lot. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an example. Now I know what you are talking about. There was no need to get nasty. Ignocrates (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added quite a few more links; hopefully, these improvements are satisfactory. Ignocrates (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything else? You mentioned something about repetition but I'm not seeing it. Please be specific. Ignocrates (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Pisco Sour

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Correction suggestions from the first FAC review have been completed. Assuming no new points need to be addressed, this should be a much more simple FAC. I do, however, ask for a check (and improvement) to be made to the "ALT Text" I added to images. I have little experience with the ALT text and do not know if my descriptions are accurate.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the request to review alt text. Some of your alt text is probably unnecessarily verbose. The thinking on alt text has changed substantially since the WP:ALT guideline was first introduced. The major purpose of alt text is to prevent screenreaders inappropriately reading out the file name (this is the default if no alt parameter is specified). In the majority of cases a minimal "photo" or "painting" etc is all that is needed. Further description is appropriate if it is vital or helpful in understanding the article when the image is not present. But if the caption already says everything that is needed then more alt text is superfluous. To test whether you have good alt text, read the alt description immediately followed by the image caption (this is what a screenreader will do) without looking at the image and if it makes sense and doesn't repeat then it will do. SpinningSpark 12:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Spin. I appreciate the recommendation and background on the WP:ALT guideline development. The ALT text should now be fixed in the article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Spinningspark. There has been some editing going on while I have been reviewing so some of this may now be fixed

Lede

• "western South American cuisine"
• "The cocktail originated in Lima, Peru, invented by Victor Vaughn Morris, an American bartender, in the early 1920s" better "The cocktail originated in Lima, Peru and was invented by Victor Vaughn Morris, an American bartender, in the early 1920s"
• "advertisement from Morris' Bar". Should this be "advertisement for Morris' Bar"?

Etymology

• In my opinion, etymologies are really a function for Wiktionary, not here, but that may just be me. In any case, the section is not, or is not entirely, an etymology - it does not trace through to the root of the words. Perhaps it could just be "Name".
• "The term Pisco Sour is made up of two word components, sour and Pisco". I don't think our readers are going to be find this a difficult concept. It is really nnecessarily stating the obvious.
• "in the second half of the sixteenth century". No particular need for this to be in scare quotes
• "This definition has been accepted by institutions such as..." If the definition is disputed, this should be stated. If it is not disputed, then it is only necessary to cite the "institutions" as references.

Background

• Why is it necessary to use the technical word "vinification"?

Origin

• If the ad in the image is the one described in the text, then that should be stated, it is not clear at the moment.
• "Overtime" > Over time

Images

• Old Fashioned Glass.svg does not have alt text
• "The Hotel Bolivar was among the several Lima hotels" unnecessary "the"
• "Painting of a man in horseback leading two pack animals" (alt text). Shoud be "man on horseback"

Links

• The link tool is reporting several links that either time out or are dead.

Spread

• "enthalled". I don't like this word, it sounds unencyclopaedic. If you are quoting someone, I would be happy if it were in quotes.
• "Additionally,.." Does not seem an appropriate linking phrase. "In 19xx..." would be better, or even do without it altogether.
• Iquique needs wikilinking

Preparation

• There is a contradiction with the lede. The lede has been changed and no longer says the Chileacn version excludes egg white, but this section does not include egg white in the ingredients.
• "difference is from the way..." > difference is in the way.
• "...for whereas...". The "for" is superfluous
• "Piscola is made by mixing Pisco with Coca-Cola." Does it have to be Coca-Cola? Other brands are avaiable.

Popularity

• Is the International Pisco Sour Day a different day from the National days in Peru and Chile? There seems to be a contradiction in the dates (8th Feb/ 1st Saturday in Feb)

You are to be congratulated on a well researched article. There is one major issue holding me back from supporting this for FA. In the dispute between Chile and Peru over the priority for the invention of the cocktail the article (probably quite rightly) comes down heavily in favour of Peru. However, sourcing for this is weak. [15] appears to be a site primarily intended to sell books and thus has reliabiltiy issues and [16] is a Peruvian news site so is suspect neutrality. A peer reviewed article would be preferable, if one could be found, for such a controversial issue. SpinningSpark 20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC) to 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Great suggestions. Most of them should be fixed.

• Not sure what to write instead of "western South American". The cocktail is typical of Peruvian, Chilean, and Bolivian cuisines. Writing all three countries in the sentence could be an alternative, but I prefer the current style. Then again, maybe the problem is with "western" (brings images of the wild west); is "west" better?
• "Vinification" seems the most appropriate term to use in the current sentence structure.
• The "old fashioned glass.svg" image comes with the infobox description. I do not know how to change the alt text on that particular image.
• The link tool was acting strange yesterday. Today it shows all links as good. No dead links should be in the article now.

Thanks again for the improvements.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• On vinification, I really don't see the need to force the reader to look up the meaning of an unfamiliar term when there is a perfectly servicable common English term, winemaking, available to use instead.
• On western, my concern is the use of two -n adjectival endings in the same phrase (western and American). I don't know if there is a grammar rule against this but it reads "wrong" to me. SpinningSpark 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for putting a pointer to the image in the text, but "shown on the image to the left" is making an assumption about page rendering which may well be incorrect for many readers (see WP:MOSIM). SpinningSpark 09:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed several of the other points you mentioned (the article's history should show which of them in greater detail). To answer some of your comments:

• Piscola is generally made with Coca-Cola (coming from a personal understanding), but I suppose any cola would do the trick.
• Chile celebrates its holiday on February 8. Peru celebrates it on the first Saturday of February (which can be any date other than the 8th), and apparently this is also the "International Pisco Sour Holiday" mentioned by the Australian source. Peru changed its original holiday date (the 8th of February) after the Chilean Pisco industry took the same date for its celebrations.
• Toro-Lira's website ("Wings of Cherubs") is valuable for its "articles" section (not the book-selling part). The website is essentially a personal "blog" of Toro-Lira, which would fall on the WP:SPS guideline. As far as reliability (to justify the quality and inclusion of the blog), I argue that he is the second most reliable source in the article (behind the University of Cuyo). The San Francisco Weekly has a good quick description of the man([8]). As must have been noticed, the article is filled with information from "wine and food experts" and "expert bartenders", all of which are weak sources under a regular analysis. However, not only are they the only sources I can work with (no truly notable historian is ever going to devote his life to studying cocktails; or at least none has done it up to this point), but they are also the kind of sources to be expected for the article subject. Therefore, in many ways, this FAC might set a precedent for future Food & Wine Wikipedia articles. We must decide if the sources in the article are reliable enough for the subject to justify an FA status, or if GA is the best it can ever possibly get at this time.
• The Peruvian newspaper (El Comercio (Peru)) is the country's most reliable news source. Nonetheless, I understand the concern and can use other sources to source the Victor Morris account (here are a few from Google Books: [9], [10],[11]), but these are the "food and wine experts" I mentioned in the (likely WP:TLDR) paragraph above this one.

Sorry for the long response, but I hope it provides a better view of the situation.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I can accept that food and drink articles are going to have a lower quality of sources than, say, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. What I cannot accept is a Wikipedia article taking a strong POV in a controversial dispute between the two major nations relevant to this article on the basis of such sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a deal-breaker for me and I would have to oppose as it stands now. But I tell you what, if you can show that Toro-Lira meets the condition in WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" then I will accept him as a reliable source for the truth of the dispute even though his findings are self-published. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think that is a fair deal. Prior to analyzing Toro-Lira's WP:SPS status, first we would need to know what other authors say about the dispute:

• Pisco Sour invented by American bartender Victor V. Morris (DeGroff, Kosmas and Zaric,Parsons, and Schiaffino). Interestingly, Chile's main newspaper (El Mercurio) also uses the Schiaffino information to explain that the Pisco Sour originated in Peru ([12]).
• Pisco Sour invented by English steward Elliot Stubb (Plath).

The main difference is that the information about Victor Morris is mostly a 21st century development. Prior to its discovery, people in Peru thought that the inventor of the drink was Peruvian bartender Mario Bruiget (I know this from personal experience, but the sources available don't say it now). Then the question is: What is Toro-Lira stating that is exceptional?

• In answer to that, Toro-Lira is linking the University of Cuyo's research (which attributes the Whiskey Sour to Elliot Stubb) with the Plath source. He discredits Plath based on the Cuyo source. None of the other sources do this analysis. The WP:SPS is going to need to be applied here to justify Toro-Lira's analysis; however, the other information (Morris and his invention) is already resolved.

Therefore, the problem here is not that the controversy is not resolved, but rather that Chile and Peru are still fighting over it for the sake of the fight (which is not unusual for them). It probably also has to do with the fact that the Morris discovery is relatively recent (2006-2007). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After a few hours of research focusing on Guillermo Toro-Lira, I found the following:

• From the source Imbibe! I understand that Toro-Lira has some influence in the world of cocktails (see [13])
• His account on Pisco Sour also appears on Peru's El Comercio ([14]). Other third-party publications also have it, but these are not as reliable as El Comercio.

So, that's all there is to him. I still see him as reliable. No author disputes Toro-Lira's findings, and his academic honesty is intact.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not really enough to get Toro-Lira past WP:SPS, the requirement is that he be previously published not just mentioned. I would also accept him as an expert source if he had a decent citation h-index, or some other academic metric, or met the conditions of WP:PROF. The issue here is not whether your analysis of the history is incorrect or that Toro-Lira should not be used as a source, but rather, whether the balance of the article is neutral. You seem to be saying that you are not relying on Toro-Lira to establish Morris' priority, so further discussion of Toro-Lira's reliability may, in fact, be a red herring. Do any reliable sources, besides the previously mentioned Plath, support the Chilean claim to priority? SpinningSpark 07:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am only relying on Toro-Lira for the Cuyo and Plath analysis. The Victor Morris and Pisco Sour account is supported by all the other sources as well, including the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio. All of these sources are in the 2000's, meaning that this consensus on Morris being the inventor (and Lima the city of invention) is relatively recent.

Aside from Plath, no other reliable source attributes the invention of the cocktail to Elliot Stubb. For instance, in Google Books (see [15]), only 7 mentions are made of "Pisco Sour" and "Elliot Stubb". The first source is a personal diary or story, so it is not a reliable source. The second book is using information from "1001cocktails.com", and that is also unreliable. The third source ([16]) does seem reliable, but it only has the Stubb story (in German) as a footnote, while placing the Morris account on the main text. The other two sources have snippet views, so I cannot assert their reliability, and the last source is from the University of Cuyo (which claims Elliott Stubb's newspaper story had him as inventor of the "Whiskey Sour"). A regular Google search does have more hits for the searched terms, but none of the websites seem reliable (or safe for browsing).

What sources do mention is the "Pisco war" between Peru and Chile. They include the Pisco Sour into it, but none really bother to explain why other than that Chile and Peru dispute its origin. This creates a strange situation where I can source that "Chile and Peru dispute the origin of the Pisco Sour", but where WP:WEIGHT gives more credibility to the Peruvian account, and where the Chilean account is even discredited by Toro-Lira and the University of Cuyo.

What do you recommend should be done in this kind of cases?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I am now prepared to AGF your analysis of the sources and support promotion - provided you do something about that sentence which is still telling me that Pisco Sour consists of two words. SpinningSpark 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Spin. I removed the sentence that stated Pisco Sour consisted of two words. I think that is the best solution.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support promotion of a well researched and presented article. SpinningSpark 18:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt

(having stumbled here from my FAC)

1. 3rd paragraph lede/intro sect - the "however" could be removed from the last sentence in this sect, without any detriment to the sentence or readability.
2. Name sect - there is a quotation in the last sentence of this sect, but unclear which cite is being used to verify this. Maybe that particular cite could be moved earlier in the sentence to be located directly after the comma after that quote?
3. Background sect, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, "however" word can be removed here, while still maintaining understanding of the sentence.
4. Origin sect, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, "asserts" might sound better than "claims" here.
5. Nationality dispute, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, "however" word can be deleted here, without harming comprehension of this sentence.
6. Spread sect, dissonance in use of time tenses, present tense in 2nd paragraph, "Jimenez ... indicates..." and past tense in 3rd paragraph, "Claure... wrote ...". Might be a good idea to make this more uniform and fix standardization of the tenses throughout the article, just in case there are more discrepancies.
7. Nationality dispute - could this be somehow moved into the History sect?
8. Bibliography sect, no need for any columns here, not enough individual listings for this. Suggest just removing that formatting and having one single column list, normal text size.
9. External links sect, missing a link to Wikimedia Commons for sister links. I see there is an existing category that can be added to link to in this sect for readers to view all the related images in one location.
10. External links sect, only has one link. This appears to show favorites to that one website. Any way at least two or so other links could be added here?

Thank you for the quality improvement project on this most interesting topic. I shall have to make a point to try this drink sometime soon. — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cirt. Most of this should be fixed. I still need to check the standardization of the tenses.

The "nationality dispute" of the drink is an important part to its notability. Having a separate section is good for readers who want to know more about the nature of the dispute (rather than everything about the Pisco Sour). I think it also provides a fair amount of emphasis on the Chilean story and the English steward who made his bar in Iquique.

The bibliography section should now be a single line. Does the small text look good or do you think the normal is necessary?

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. Okay keep us posted on the tense uniformity issue. The "Nationality dispute" is really part of the History of the topic and should be included in that subsection, though it can of course still be its own sub-sub-section. Readers will still easily be able to find it there. The Bibliography section should be normal font size, no need for small size for that number of entries. — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Cirt. The tense uniformity is now standard in present tense. The Bibliography is also now on normal font size. I am in the process of incorporating the "nationality dispute" into the history, but first would like to know Spin's view on how to approach the sources in the section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Finished incorporating the "Nationality dispute" section into the history.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks very much for the responsiveness to my comments, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comments - reading through now - will jot notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, beverage experts concur that both kinds of Pisco are completely distinct in both production and taste. - "completely" redundant here.

I'd put the first sentence of para 3 in the lead onto the end of para 2 as it talks about the development of the Peruvian drink. Looks weird starting a para which is about the Chilean drink...

I'd italicise words-as-words or foreign words in the Background section, such as pisco and aguardiente

Bruiget's recipe added the Angostura bitters and egg whites to the mix - link "Angostura bitters" at first mention here

In Chile, a local lore developed in the 1980s - hmm, I'd never say "A lore" - "A local anecdote" or "Local folklore" or something maybe....

This has caused an ongoing dispute between Chile and Peru over the national origin of Pisco Sour - "National" redundant here.

Nevertheless, researcher Toro-Lira argues the lore - as preceding..."the story"? "the tale"?

In the Preparation and variants section, italicise foreign terms not used in English (the fruit?)

Is the drink classified in some group of drinks with similar recipes? (do they do this with cocktails??)

Otherwise an enjoyable read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions Casliber. I have fixed most of the points made.

I am having some difficult with the usage of italics in the text. I am somewhat at a loss of what may be a foreign term in formal English.

In response to your last question, the closest thing to a "family" for Pisco Sour are the Sour (cocktail).

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Serious concern: in the previous FAC, concern about Peruvian v. Chilean POV was expressed, and I mentioned a JSTOR journal article that should be consulted to correct that POV (Joelson). One minor sentence from the journal article has now been included-- that sentence does not address the concerns. On a general note, it would be optimal if reviewers declaring support would review previous FACs to assure that previous concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sandy. Thank you for the comment.

The JSTOR information from Daniel Joelson concerns the dispute over Pisco, the brandy.

Only a paragraph in Page 8 of the source talks about Pisco Sour, the cocktail. The one paragraph has the following text:

"Though Peru and Chile are at odds over who owns pisco, both make Pisco Sour. The main difference is that Peruvians generally include egg whites, while Chileans do not. Sometimes a few drops of angostura bitters are added to the drink." (D. Joelson, "Pisco Wars")

Both are different items, although certainly related.

Also worth noting is that Joelson does have a certain pro-Chile POV, best explained by the description provided by Amazon.com ("Daniel Joelson has been navigating and probing Chile for the past five years in order to unearth its stories and hidden secrets. These discoveries have appeared in publications ranging from The San Francisco Chronicle to Latin Trade. A native of Arlington, Virginia, Joelson has been cooking since his youth and has worked as a food writer and critic. He makes his home in Santiago, Chile." [17]). He certainly is a reliable source, but not as NPOV as might be thought.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sandy, I did read the previous review, but I don't think anyone should be obligated to take on objections of other editors in a prior review as their own. I did, however, probe the proposer quite carefully on this issue before supporting. Rather than lashing out at other reviewers, please provide some evidence that there is indeed POV and I might well change my recommendation, otherwise it stands as a support. SpinningSpark 02:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Millennium Force

Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all criteria and has all the information a roller coaster article should have. The article did not get promoted the first time because there was not enough reviews. It has gone through all the necessary steps and is ready for another review. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC) The article is comprehensive and thorough, and I agree with the Support comment by Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) from the last FAC about the quality of the sourcing. Very nice usage of structural layout and image presentation alongside the descriptive text and track characteristics. I also like the tabular presentation of the Rankings section. Seems like quite the exciting ride. — Cirt (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Since I was invoked above, I thought that I'd weigh in. I stand by the above-mentioned comments about sources. This article is much-improved since I last PRed it. I have a few picky comments; once they're addressed, I'll support.
• Ride experience/Queue: This system was discontinued in 2004 after several people complained it was unfair that others were going ahead of them in line. In 2012, Cedar Point introduced its Fast Lane queue system on the ride; visitors can buy a wristband which enables them to wait in a shorter line. The system was tested at Kings Island the previous year, in which it received positive reviews. The word "people" in the 1st sentence is repetitive; I'd replace the 2nd instance with "others". You mix tenses in the 2nd sentence. I'd change the 2nd phrase, after the semi-colon to past-tense. I think you can replace "in which" in the 3rd sentence to "where", since Kings Island is a place.
  • If I changed the 2nd phrase to past-tense, it would sound like visitors can no longer get Fast Lane. I fixed the other issue.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
• Lighting: The two companies mentioned, since they're redlinked, should have some identification, such as where they're headquartered. This is just a suggestion that you can ignore if you think best. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm good with the above. Change to support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead needs alt text
  • You mean the infobox picture?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes. — DivaKnockouts 15:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Write out numbers lower than ten per WP:ORDINAL.
  • What section are you talking about?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The lead and the 'Construction and opening' subsection. — DivaKnockouts 15:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• There is one dead link
  • Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Could a better source not be found to replace #40?
  • Nothing that's more reliable.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• No other major problems.

I'll reread to see if I see anything else. — DivaKnockouts 02:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

• Support — Fixed. Everything looks great. — DivaKnockouts 16:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment – I wasn't overly pleased about the source quality last time, and there are still a few issues in that regard. Refs 35 and 55 are to YouTube in addition to the aforementioned ref 40. Ref 39 is to Flickr, which isn't normally a reliable source either; commentary based on the content of photographs could be considered original research if not mentioned in the source itself. I'm still not 100% sold on this being FA-quality, even though my peers seem to be. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If I removed 35 and 55, would you give your support? I think 39 is ok because there doesn't need to be any explanation. There are clearly red lights above the track and nothing else needs explained.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It would help, but I don't think I can support as long as the Flickr source is in the article. It just doesn't meet my expectations for source quality in an FA, even for a roller coaster article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I can't support or oppose this nom so really my one suggestion means next to nothing. Anyway, wouldn't it maybe be a good idea to cite the Amusement Today sources similarly to the ones in the SheiKra article?--Dom497 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Nominator(s): Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all of the criterion outlined at WP:FACR:

1. It is well-written. The content is very interesting; in fact, the first time that I, personally, read the article, I read the entire thing without realizing it - the style and language used is simply engrossing. It is unique, professional, clear, and provides many parallels with other religions and articles that keep the reader entertained.
2. It is comprehensive. Without overwhelming the reader with un-encyclopedic content, the article manages to entirely cover all major aspects and movements associated with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
3. It is well-researched. With 96 sources from a variety of media forms and areas, all information is adequately documented and verifiable. Citations are kept up-to-date and reflect a range of research that is paralleled in the article with substantial, informative information.
4. It is certainly neutral. Looking at the talk page FAQs, it is clear that there has been criticism from both sides of arguments surrounding this topic, which I view as an accurate representation that both sides are being equally represented and their views presented without showing favor or bias. The article is absent of any WP:NPOV violations.
5. It is stable. The article is semi-protected, and the talk page reveals little to no recent vandalism with multiple instances of polite, non-reviewer users kindly requesting changes that are acceptable and quickly implemented.
6. They style guidelines are met to all feature article expectations, including the lead, which is sizable, provides excellent background and lead-up information, and is interesting.
7. The structure of the article is excellent, divided into nine main sections that follow a logical sequence and structure. These are further divided when appropriate. Links to other articles and external resources are provided when beneficial, and templates are well-used.
8. The references follow typical structure and do not vary in style. After all, the article is already considered a Good Article and, though I realize Featured Articles are held to an even higher standard, this criterion is clearly met. References are more than sufficient and stylized appropriately.
9. Media effectively supports the article without being overwhelming or irrelevant. All media is under creative commons license with the exception of two adequately-documented and supported fair use images and one public domain image.
10. The length is ideal for this subject. It is not overly wordy and, as stated, includes necessary content and media without including un-encyclopedic content or being overwhelming.

In summary, I feel that this would make an excellent contribution to the Featured Article collection, as it is interesting to the general public, unique, entertaining, and reflects some of Wikipedia's editors' excellent work to the standards that we strive to achieve. Jackson Peebles (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Delegate/procedural comment -- Hi Jackson, I gather you're not a contributor to this article. I've seen that you left a message on the article talk page but have you directly contacted the main editors to discuss this nomination? FAC nominees are expected to be among the article's major contributors, or at least to have consulted with them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian! I appreciate the feedback. In accordance with your suggestions, the discussion picked up a bit at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster#Featured Article Status. I feel it should also be noted that the article did splendidly at peer review, with Guy Macon stating that he felt it was ready for FA status! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 05:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone object to me being the Nominator? My style of contributing to articles which already have several active editors is to work with others on the article talk page and then let them edit the article. If you look at my first ten or fifteen talk page comments or this archived discussion you will see the sort of contribution I have been making.. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Support per talk page. Guy has my full support and I relinquish any perceived claim that I had on this nomination. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 00:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: It's an entertaining article that certainly satisfies criteria 1a, but unfortunately I have to oppose based on a failure to satisfy 2c.

• All of the citations need to be properly formatted in a consistent manner. Examples: "Billy Townsend", "Kent Hovind", "John Chambliss", "RD Magazine", "El Pais", "Carole M. Cusack", "DIY Flying Spaghetti Monster bumper sticker", the bare link for reference 72, &c.
• What makes The Big Announcement a reliable source? Or Ramendan? Even under WP:SELFPUB, do they speak for the "movement" as a whole?
• There is no direct link between the paragraph about the "Kansas State Board of Education" and the remainder of the article. Yes it is related to the bigger issue of teaching ID, but there is no clear link to FSM. If this can not be established, then I think the paragraph should be removed.

Otherwise I enjoyed reading this article. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article cites web forums as sources. That is all. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Georgia Tech Research Institute

Nominator(s): Disavian (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I resolved the comments on the first FAC before it closed, so I've returned for more feedback; I'm pretty proud of this article and hope that one day, it gets the star. I currently have another FAC (G. Wayne Clough) open, but User:ResearcherQ has volunteered to co-nom per the rules of one FAC/person, but is busy until at least Monday. Disavian (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed and its a worthy article, so I'd like to provide my support for promotion. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: the article seems fine for the most part. I only have a few issues:

• The article mentions the name "Montgomery Knight", but says nothing about who he is. From what I've read he's actually pretty notable, so I think he deserves a red link.
  • I'll do you one better: a nice 9.3k article about Montgomery Knight, hot off the press. Disavian (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "...named the Thomas Hinman Research Building": after Atlanta dentist and University donor Thomas Hinman.[18]
  • Added that bit. diff. Disavian (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• "...and used as a component in the...": please fix the grammar or meaning here.
  • I think this did the trick. diff. Disavian (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• "...its role as a technological incubator and the beginning of an international development initiative in 1964...": This doesn't read well. Please could you clarify the meaning?
  • I tried a stab at that, not sure if it's enough. I definitely had a "who wrote this? oh, right, me." moment. diff. Disavian (talk) 06:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Engineering the New South: Georgia Tech 1885–1985" is missing a publication date and an ISBN code.
  • Fixed. diff. Disavian (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There were quite a few redundant uses of 'also', which I took the liberty of trimming. Hopefully that doesn't cause a concern. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review this article. :) I'll try to get to these asap. Disavian (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my issues. Good luck with your FAC. Praemonitus (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Nominator(s): Casprings (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this article has faced repeated controversies over WP:SYN, WP:Coatrack, and WP:OR. However, the article is at a clear consensus over those issues. Two important discussions on this can be found here and here. During the last WP:FA nomination, one actionable issue involving the other controversies section was brought up. Basically, it was stated that it was WP:Coatrack. This was also addressed with another RfC. In sum,I think there is consensus on these issues. Moreover, I think the article was improved by the last WP:FA nomination process. In my opinion, I think the article is now at a WP:FA level and wish to put it forward for another nomination.Casprings (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Support - I applaud your efforts to create an encyclopedic topic about a very controversial topic, and that's great! Referencing seems all there, it has free use images, a nice length, well sectioned, well written. I had some questions, but kept reading and found the answers. Great job overall! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. Casprings (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - per previous FAC.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. Casprings (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do not support. The previous FAC nomination was declined on 4/13/2013 stating that remaining issues should be resolved prior to another nomination. But it does not appear that anything has been addressed and basically Casprings simply renominated the article. My basic opposition also remains; that this article is little more than a collection of events presented solely to attack Republicans, and still includes the opinion that this had a significant impact presented as a factual statement. (Obama's share of the women vote went down in 2012 compared to 2008). Arzel (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• As mentioned in my opening statements, I have addressed the issues brought up in the pervious FAC by gaining concensus. The links to those discussions are in that opening statement.Casprings (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• You have refused to allow the sourced aspect that Obama received more of the women vote in 2008, so I would say that you have continued to not address it. As I have said numerous times, if you wish to write a research paper, do it, just don't present your research on WP as fact. Also, considering it has only been a couple of weeks since the previous close of the FA nomination and that there has been no discussion on the talk page by you I fail to see how you could possibly have addressed those issues. Arzel (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• The article follows what is established community concensus. If you want change, I would suggest you try to provide a conceiving argument that sways others. Wikipedia offers many tools to do this and get feedback for what others think. However, simply restating arguments that don't have concensus doesn't work. I would suggest a RfC, for example. Casprings (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Arzel, how many forums have you now made this argument in? No one agrees with you that the article will only be neutral if your original synthesis is added. FAC is not designed to allow a single user to stonewall a process because of a personal grievance. Stop beating the dead horse. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your desire to push this is well demonstrated. The fact that it is not original synthesis has been well presented. I will not stand idly by while you and Casprings attempt to put forth an article which promotes a view which I have already shown to be untrue with reliable sources. WP is not a place to promote your personal research and advocacy, I really wish you would stop. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Arzel may somewhat overstate what can be divined from the actual statistics, but the general point that stating that "women" (in this case, using the word unmodified must apply to the general class) voted FOR Democrats as a result of these gotcha campaign battles flies in the face of the lower statistical level. Nasty politics generally supresses votes, particularly of moderates, and only rallies the base. While speculation on what may have explained election results might fly on election day, statements of causality now need factual statistical and nonpartisan analysis. This article fails on this point, regardless of whether Arzel's analysis is in or out of articlespace. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• It is not my analysis. I have presented the RS's numerous times which clearly state that the effect of the women vote may not be attributed to these events. Casprings and Roscelese seen to be adamantly against including this information supported by reliable sources. Ironically, they already use some of those same sources to promote their own original research. If Casprings and Roscelese believe that the % of women vote for Obama in 2012 is an important statistic to support the general theory then it is extremely disingenuous to leave out the statistic showing (via RS's) that there was no statistical effect. This is not to say that there was no effect, but Obama's % of women vote simply does not support this theory and should not be used in a FA to promote this theory when it can so easily be shown to not be true. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Apologies to Arzel, he is correct, my comment was out of date. In a prior debate, he was comparing the immediate spin post-election implying effect, and the contradiction of those narratives by later actual statistical data. While I agreed that his analysis was obvious, it was HIS analysis. I neglected to check that, subsequent to Arzel's posting of statistics, with elementary analysis but no secondary WP:RS, WP:RS have been found which also make the same conclusion. This now becomes a debate about whether data or speculative post-election narratices will be used. Sorry.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• And the source that connects the 2008 data to the subject of the page is? Casprings (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• THis has been dealt with. The article has analysis made by WP:RS. If a WP:RS makes the case, it is in the article. Casprings (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• How convenient that you would leave out additional information from RS's that do not support that implication you are trying to make. You do realize that your source of the %'s does not make the case that you are trying to make, yet you include them without any context leaving the implication that you are trying to prove. If anything this supports the argument that this article is little more than your personal research paper and I continue to suggest that you submit your research to an actual journal rather than try to use WP for this purpose. Arzel (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• They use the exit poll number in context of post election analysis. Those analysis also mention Akin comments. I am doing little but providing the same context as the news articles. No RS I have seem has said, "well he actually got a a percentage less than 2008, so these issues had no effect. That said, if you can find that, less include it.12:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• But they don't tie Akin's comments into the vote % that Obama received in 2012. I have never said that there was no effect, only that none of the RS's say that Obama's % of women vote in 2012 was a reflection of these events in 2012. The closest any of the sources get to any connection, that I have seen, is that the % of women voters went up in 2012, and because of this Romney's advantage with men was unable to close the gap against Obama. Arzel (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and started an RfC, here. In either case, we are talking about one sentence. That, in my opinion, should not hold back the article from WP:FA.Casprings (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do not support. Should never have been made even a GA. Questionable WP:RS, plus virtually every paragraph has mis-attribution or fraudulent attribution of spin or opinion to vague sources. Has nothing but a one-sided spin and the documentation of such, NPOV issues abound, as do due weight issues. Unfortunately, there also seems to have been a lot of well-intentioned work to fix every minor technical issue, such as grammar and reference format, but none to address glaring problems with content. extreme fail.

• Is there any specific issue you can actually cite, that is not already at consensus? This seems to be a string of statements without providing any mention of what is actually in the article. Casprings (talk) 03:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• As stated, too numerous to mention in a FA review. Even machine-generated scan flags this article for weasel words, and excessive use of passive voice. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• So, the problem is "weasel words, and excessive use of passive voice"? But in your pervious statement, you said that "there also seems to have been a lot of well-intentioned work to fix every minor technical issue" and that the problem was " virtually every paragraph has mis-attribution or fraudulent attribution of spin or opinion to vague sources." I am confused. Some examples of text that are problematic would be very helpful.Casprings (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would note that both Anonymous and Arzel are not uninvolved in the article.Casprings (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

you "would"? why? comment on editor not edit? --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• To point out to other reviews that you and Arzel have reasonable deep involvement in the article. That would be important for anyone reading this to know. I pointed that out in a simple statement.Casprings (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• You might also point out that you have an even deeper involvement in this article. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't that fall into the no s**t category? I have nominated the article for WP:FA status.Casprings (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The Man in the Moone

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk), John O'London (talk), Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Drmies and I started work on this article about one of the earliest works of British science fiction so long ago that I can hardly remember why we embarked on it. I'm glad we did though, because I think that together, with the help of John O'London, we've produced one of the best, if not the best, encyclopedic accounts of this rather short but surprisingly influential book you're likely to find anywhere. I hope you agree. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• This actually started as a little DYK present for MF, following on a remark he made while we were working on the green children. Then it became a monster. Let me add that I'm an academic writer by profession and do not mind tweakage for more encyclopedic diction and syntax. However. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
• It's a super article. I'd like to see instances of "aforementioned", "additionally" and "however" reduced to a minimum or eliminated before I could support on prose. May be more comments to come, that's just on a first pass. --John (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  I've given those "however"s a good spanking. See what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 11:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  Much better, thank you. I'll have a proper look tonight or tomorrow. --John (talk) 11:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Godwin_man_in_the_moone.jpg: if they author died more than 100 years ago, we can just assume he died more than 70 years ago - +100 is fine on its own
• FN14, 52, 53: page formatting
• FN15: page?
• Ranges should use endashes (not hyphens or emdashes)
• Be consistent in how ranges are abbreviated
• Be sure to identify foreign-language sources
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I got all those except for the page numbers for FN15, which I don't immediately have access to, and flagging the language on a couple of the sources. As I wouldn't feel confident in distinguishing between Dutch and Flemish I'll leave that for Drmies to sort out. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we've got all those now. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't tell you how much I hate that "rule" of "no periods for incomplete sentences". Bleh. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Excellent article, just a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Spelling includes both AE and BE, should be consistently the latter, especially since you have both "favor" and "favour"

  I think we're consistent Br English now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Two of "Further reading" need language fields

  Done. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lunar speculation—why is lunar capped here?

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• posthumously, Jesuit, circumnavigation, Tenerife, Calvinist, genealogy —link?

  I've added links for Calvinism and Tenerife; Jesuit was already linked. Not sure we need links for posthumously, circumnavigation or genealogy though. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sidereus Nuncius, Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris, De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas—Give a translation?

  Done. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• 1630s also saw the publication —also seems redundant

  Agreed, removed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Peking —is this version rather than Beijing a conscious choice?

  Not really, changed to Beijing. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lunar Christianity—again, why caps

  Because "Lunar" is the name Godwin gives to the inhabitants of the Moon, therefore it's a proper noun here. I'll read through again to make sure we've been consistent in using "lunar" when we're talking about the Moon and "Lunar" when we're talking about the people. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• gansa—does the book actually say they are swans? It looks like the Indo-European root for "goose" (I don't have access to the OED, which presumably clarifies)

  They're definitely called swans in the book. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, swans--and Jim, the OED definition is actually in the article. :) Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Lunar inhabitants.— why caps?

  Changed to "lunar inhabitants". Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, "Lunar" struck me as odd as well with a capital once or twice, but I chose consistency. I'm not married to capitalization. Thanks MF. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I added language parameters to the "Further reading". Personally, I wouldn't red-link journals, but then I wouldn't blue-link either, just a style thing. I had a quick look to see if I could spot anything else, but all looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• That linking is my doing, no doubt, for reasons which have as much to do with the journals and their (future) articles as with this specific article. I'm a big fan of redlinks when appropriate, and I think (or I like to think) that I didn't add them for non-notable publications. Malleus's mileage may vary. Or can vary. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

  I've got no problem with the red links. I simply thought they were a reminder to you to get your arse in gear and write the linked articles. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• Y Done Drmies (talk)

Parrot of Doom comments. I've worked with Malleus on several articles but have had no input on this one, indeed this review will be the first time I've read it. Due to restraints on my time, I will review only the text; citations et al I leave to others.

• Support' Parrot of Doom 13:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Initially considered an early work of Godwin's" - minor thing but this sentence made me check who Godwin is, despite him having been mentioned in the previous sentence. Can you not just write "Initially considered to be one of his early works"?

  Good idea, changed as per your suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 19:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are lots of citations in the lead section, are most of them necessary?

  I've removed all but two, which I think we do need. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Godwin proposes that the dark spots on the Moon are seas, one of many similarities between The Man in the Moone and Kepler's Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris of 1634" - this sentence, from the lead, is almost identical to a sentence in the first paragraph of "Scientific advances and lunar speculation". Is it possible to reword to avoid a sense of deja vu?
  • PoD, that is possible, but Malleus, do you mind if I leave this kind of copyedit to you? You're much better at it than I am. (This is probably a redundancy I created when I reorganized content and created a new section.) Drmies (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

    No problem, I've had a go at rewording the lead. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "lunatic church" - is there any connection between this phrase and the old lunacy/lunar connection?

  Undobtedly, as the term lunatic for someone who's insane had been in use since the 13th century. But I think we ought to leave that connection for the reader to infer. Malleus Fatuorum 13:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Who or what are/were Grant McColley and William Poole?

  I've added a parenthetical note explaining that McColley is "a historian of early Modern English literature". I'm not sure that Poole needs to be similarly introduced though, as he's clearly described as the author of the 2009 edition of The Man in the Moone. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Dating evidence" - there's quite a lot of valuable information in this section but I wonder, would a small preface make it more readable for the casual observer? Something about how the dating evidence is found in historical authors, clerics, old texts, etc? Also, some of the authors are only given names, while others - "based on a manuscript by Matteo Ricci, the founder of the Jesuit mission in Beijing in 1601" - are given titles. I'm no historian, so I had to click to see who was what. Later in the article, other writers and historical figures are given titles, so perhaps there's a little bit of inconsistency there.
• Who was Kathleen Tillotson?

  She was professor of English at Bedford College London, and a noted Victorian scholar, particularly of Dickens; I'm a bit surprised there isn't an article on her. For our purposes I've added a description of her as a literary critic, which she also was. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Lawton's 1931 article mentions a copy" - Lawton's full name and title is missing, and also the title or purpose of his article.

  It was another review article. I've changed the beginning of the sentence to " H. W. Lawton's review published six years earlier ...". Malleus Fatuorum 14:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The printer of the first edition is identified on the title page as John Norton" - to which copy does this refer - McColley's, Lawton's or Poole's?

  None of the above, it refers to the first edition of Godwin's The Man in the Moone. I've hopefully clarified that now. Malleus Fatuorum 14:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The partial revision of the manuscript " - same question as above
• "and so do the many translations based on Baudoin" - would it be appropriate to substitute "it" for "Baudoin"?

  I think so, done. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Eventually he comes to rely on a species of bird he describes a some kind of wild swan" - typo?

  A typo indeed, now fixed. I'd blame it on Drmies, but as I wrote most of the plot summary I might not get away with that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• "When Gonsales first encounters the Lunars" - I can probably guess who they are, but the plot section doesn't mention him meeting "Lunars", only "inhabitants".

  I think that's fixed now? Malleus Fatuorum 19:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is it an omission that we only learn of Godwin's protestantism half way through the article? In fact, the article doesn't exactly make it clear what his religion was.

  Good point. I've added to the lead that Godwin was a bishop in the Church of England. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, but nowhere else in the article does it state that Godwin was a CofE Bishop... Parrot of Doom 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  Fair enough, I've elaborated on that in the Religion section. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

  Works for me. I was just concerned that some people might not know about English religious history. Parrot of Doom 22:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• "discussion on the plurality of worlds had begun to favour the possibility of other inhabited worlds" - repetition of worlds

  I've changed the last occurrence to "the possibility of extraterrestrial life". Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Who are P Cornelius and H. Neville Davies?
• Some foreign language titles are translated, whereas others (De Magnete, L'Autre Monde: où les États et Empires de la Lune for instance), are not.

• FWIW, I asked above for some of the less transparent titles to be translated. I can see that leads to a bit of inconsistency, but De Magnete is pretty obvious, and I would have thought L'Autre Monde: où les États et Empires de la Lune was accessible enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Who and what is Knowlson?
• "The Man in the Moone became a popular source for "often extravagantly staged comic drama and opera".[59] These" - I'm nit-picking but is drama and opera singular, or plural?

  I've merged those two sentences to avoid any potential clash with "These". Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Gonsales's gansas have also left their mark." - that might be better written as "Gonsales's load-carrying birds" or similar.

  Done. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of much that's possibly missing from this article, although truth be told, I found some sections, particularly those discussing other, similar works, to be slightly impenetrable. But the above criticisms aside, I'd definitely support this. Parrot of Doom 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Support: I've read this a couple of times now, and aside from a few minor points listed below, can find very little to fault. It is well-written, clear and interesting. The points below do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do we need a touch more about the plot in the lead? It seems a bit light on that aspect.

  Good point. I've added a paragraph giving a precis of the plot. Malleus Fatuorum 11:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• "During his life, he was known as a churchman and a historian": I wonder if we need to say that he is a churchman? As he was a bishop, I'd imagine that was pretty clear.

  I don't think we do need to say that he was a churchman, no, so I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "The influence particularly of Nicolaus Copernicus led to what was called the "new astronomy"": I imagine the intention here is to say "the influence (particularly of Copernicus) led to new astronomy", but it does not quite say this, and "the influence … led" does not quite make sense. Should it be something like "These influences and particularly those of Nicholas Copernicus, led to…"? I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but there is something slightly off in this section.

  I wonder if Astronomia nova bears any relation to this? Parrot of Doom 20:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "while poets including Edmund Spenser were proposing that other worlds": Could this just be "proposed" instead of "were proposing"?

  Changed to "proposed". Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "it had been considered that Godwin wrote The Man in the Moone relatively early in his life": To me, "it had been considered" is a little cumbersome; I'd prefer "it was thought", but not a big deal.

  I'm fine with that, changed. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder is the dating section a little long? It is almost as long as the plot section, and seems to labour the point that he wrote it later than originally thought. But not a big issue for me.

• It's two big fat paragraphs, that's true. One reason for its length is that it was a pretty big deal, at least until it got settled. Another is that the grounds for dating the text involve some pretty big things--other texts, borrowings, and the growth of scientific knowledge--and they can't just be mentioned but have to be contextualized. As such, it also serves to introduce some of those scientific and historical issues, like the Chinese Jesuit mission and the relationship to Burke. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• "resulting in the Martin Marprelate controversy": Is it worth saving the reader a click or two by explaining this in the text? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  I've added a sentence to explain briefly who Martin Marprelate was. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, as one of the nominators(!), I've been so busy watching the ongoing edits, I've only just spotted something that dates back to April 2011 under "Dating evidence" - "it was thought that Godwin wrote The Man in the Moone relatively early in his life, perhaps during his time at Christ College from 1578 to 1584". Now I may have been at "the other place" myself, but I'm pretty sure it's never "Christ College" in Oxford. Under "Background and contexts" he's more correctly described as "a student of Christ Church, Oxford" with a wikilink (and the link reminds us that "'Students of Christ Church' [note capital "S"] are not students, but rather the equivalent of the fellows of the other colleges" - does this need explanation?). - John O'London (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe you're right, I've changed that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry--my fault. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Reference nitpicks by Sasata (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• All good now, thanks. Sasata (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "one of which also a lunar travel narrative" I assume there's a word missing?

  Indeed, fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, no--appositive and all. "is" makes the phrase an independent clause, necessitating different punctuation before and after. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• the subscription required template isn't required after JSTOR links; this is typically given if the title is linked (i.e., via the "url="parameter) and the reader might be expecting to find the full document when the link is clicked through. Also, it is redundant to give both the doi and the JSTOR link, as the doi leads to the JSTOR page.

  Fixed by only providing JSTOR links. Malleus Fatuorum 11:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• ref#20 (McColley) is missing a year, and the title is in sentence case, unlike most others in title case. Not sure what the first number in "4 17 (4)" represents.

  Year added and case changed. The initial "4" represents the series number; I've altered that slightly to "s4" to make that clearer. Malleus Fatuorum 11:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• page ranges are not given consistently: compare pp. 23–24 with pp. 153–4.

  The page numbering is consistent in that only page numbers ≥ 100 are abbreviated. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Frederiks & Branden (1888–1891)" -> (1888–91) per MOS:YEAR?

  Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• does Bennett 1983 not have a JSTOR link? How about Dziubinskyj 2003 and Sharpe 2011?

  Bennett and Dziubinsky are, and I've links for those, Sharp isn't. Malleus Fatuorum 12:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• does the title of Hutton 1983 really not have a possessive apostrophe in "Godwins"?

  It doesn't, no. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• should the hyphen in the title of Frederiks (1888–1891) be an endash ("der Noord - en Zuidnederlandsche letterkunde")?

  It should indeed, fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I have to change that back as well: the hyphen indicates elision ("Noordnederlandsche en Zuidnederlandsche letterkund") and "belongs" to the adjective.

• Godwin 1768 has the title in sentence case

  Case changed for consistency. Malleus Fatuorum 11:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your commens and, Malleus, for your quick edits. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Slug (song)

Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk), Melicans (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the FA criteria and is ready to be reviewed once again. The previous nomination from a couple years ago failed due to some needed copyediting. The article has since been thoroughly copyedited, and some new information has been added to expand on the subject, bringing it up to FA standards. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)

Nominator(s): ^King Jakob _C2 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... It recently passed GA with flying colors and since then I have done some copyediting and added a bit more content, so I think it's now ready for FA.^King Jakob _C2 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawing nomination as the requested additional content can probably not be provided with all the sources I am aware of for this subject already in use. ^King Jakob _C2 22:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• comment Should there not be a link in the Susquehanna River article to this page? Mattximus (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily, the Susquehanna has hundreds of tributaries, it makes sense that only the largest of them are discussed in its article. There is a link to this page in the river system template at the bottom. Kmusser (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – The reference formatting needs some work. Numerous references are lacking publishers, refs 25 and 30 are currently bare links, ref 29 is nothing but a piped title, and refs 16 and 18 shouldn't be in all caps. And is Google Maps considered a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 14:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by ColonelHenry

The following is the beginning of my comments on the article. There may be more to come and this should be considered an incomplete review (there always can be more to find). At this time, I oppose promotion to FA, pending the results that ensue from these comments and that of other reviewers.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

General comments

• I don't consider this article's prose to be well-written, engaging, or professional, in accordance with the FA criteria. I read through this and find large swaths of text that I would write differently--and considerably so. I would have organised the article's sections differently as well.

Media

• This article needs more images. Two pictures and a map currently included are nice, but more pictures are necessary given the length of the article and number of sections that are text-only

• Question: Would charts/graphs count as acceptable images?^King Jakob _C2 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Depends. Is it an image of a chart, maybe...I just don't see a need for image graphs and charts. If you're just talking about putting a table in the text of an article, no. The map is nice, all river articles should have one. But you only have two pictures pushed up at the top of the article and 80% is just big blocks of text that could benefit from being broken up with pictures.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Image Check: the three images are free and properly tagged, as of 25APR13.

Citations

• A lot of the citations (28 out of 30) do not offer a complete set of bibliographic information. For instance:

• footnotes 21-24 are from the book "History of Columbia and Montour Counties, Pennsylvania" (found here: [19]), but the cite doesn't reference the name of the book or its publishing information, the cites offer no page numbers, just chapters.
• Gertler, Edward. Keystone Canoeing, Seneca Press, 2004. is an incomplete cite ...where was it published? There are 4 companies called "Seneca Press" that print books. I would refer the nominator to the Chicago/Turabian style guide for rendering these references into properly-formatted citations.

Lede

• Does not sufficiently summarize content/aspects of the article. Larger themes of history, biology, etc. are neglected or inadequately covered.
• Sentence: "Fishing Creek is well known for its trout population and it also contains many other species of fish" -- "well known" is peacocking. Almost every river has species of fish and many are trout streams, if the river gets a little puffery, the river ought to be unique. The sentence also is strange...What did the trout population do to become famous? Did they cure cancer or are they a counter-culture?

• Removed^King Jakob _C2 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• You're not supposed to use removed/done templates in FAC because it slows down how the WP:FAC page loads. Just use text and maybe embolden it when you reply to a comment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sentence: The watershed of the Fishing Creek is 85 percent forest and 13 percent farmland. In the upper part of the Fishing Creek watershed, the remaining 2 percent is residential, whereas in the lower part of the watershed, the remaining 2 percent is urban - information that is discussed no where in the body of the article. The lede is a summary body, it is not the body nor should it discussed topics or facts that aren't mentioned or expanded in the body.

Tributaries

• I am not enthusiastic about the short, few-sentence one-paragraph sections in this section, and it would be my subjective judgment that it would be better organized as a larger "Course" prose section akin to those offered in other river FAs, Big Butte Creek, Bull Run River (Oregon), Johnson Creek (Willamette River), Paulins Kill.
• I don't think google maps (footnote 1) meets WP:RS for discussions of the river's course, tributaries, etc. Perhaps USGS topographical maps, watershed/basin reports and maps, environmental reports, local histories would be a better source that meet WP:RS.

• According to the GA review, Google maps data is OK for uncontroversial statements. That's in an archive of WP:RS/N (not sure which as there are 147 archives of that noticeboard). ^King Jakob _C2 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• First off, you're basing entire sections with google maps and for me that is a WP:RS problem. This isn't an innocuous question about alternate spellings of a road name, you are drawing the course of a river from what you see on google maps, that runs afoul of WP:SYN (i.e. original research). When the consensus says unquestionably that it's o.k. for things non-controversial, they're not endorsing a violation of OR or the basing of large swaths of content on google maps. That would not be non-controversial. Secondly, the RS/N board is a discussion board, and from what I've seen searching through it, each time the question of google maps comes up it's mentioned in the archive, it's a discussion, and none of them seem conclusive (one person argues for, another against, and little more is achieved in terms of consensus) and the discussions do not result in either an hard-and-fast consensus or an unequivocal change in the rules. So, unless I see an explicit dictum of "google maps is a reliable source" at WP:RS or another MOS policy/guideline page (i.e. a discussion that results in an unequivocal policy statement), whatever is said on a talk page is meaningless. Third, Google maps (any map) is a tertiary source and should not be used in detailed discussions. That's what secondary sources are for. This is a very salient reason for denying the FA, so I'd advise you to do it right and use a watershed report, or a local history that describes the course of the river and other documents before synthesizing a summary off what you see on google maps. If you have to use a map (a tertiary source), back it up with a secondary source...because if it is verifiable, someone would have put it in a secondary source. And as far as a reliable source, if you have to use a map as a tertiary source for anything, point to a USGS map because google maps has a myriad of accuracy problems. When in doubt, never settle for the easy way out. Google maps is the easy way out and as far as I see it, not reliable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Soil

• As someone with a background in agronomy, I know soils...but this section offers nothing to the unknowledgeable reader. It is a list of the region's various soil profiles and by a cursory glance at the content, it looks likely that this entire section too closely paraphrased from a USDA/NRCS soil survey.
• The 1914 crop yields aren't atypical or extraordinary--in fact they match average yields today (although the corn is a bit low). Why are they relevant when there's no other discussion of local agriculture? If this river and watershed feeds an agricultural region, a larger discussion of agriculture is warranted.

Watershed

• Why isn't this section incorporated into the "Course" section? I would think it would be more appropriate and cogent together.
• This section mentions tributaries that aren't even included in the tributaries section.

History

• Lacks a lot of parts of the local history (including French and Indian War and Revolution, missing a lot of Native American information that could/should be there, european settlement patterns (which ethnic groups? where did they come from? the Port of Philadelphia?). Also, 1770s is not "recent history", neither is 1915.

• Renamed subsections.^King Jakob _C2 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just renaming subsections doesn't improve the lack of content on large swaths of history.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Biology

• How is any of these species unique to the area? Aren't they largely the same species you see in almost every other river in the Northeastern US?

Habitat quality

• Needs context. The entire discussion about habitability scores, organism density, and diversity is useless without explanation what it means and why it's important.

Recreation

• Not comprehensive/Inadequate coverage. The entire first paragraph is a list of public areas, the second is a one-sentence article with a series of activities but no discussion. If this is a well-known trout stream, here would be the place to extol its virtues.

See also

• Is there a prevailing reason to link to Catawissa Creek, Nescopeck Creek? They do not seem to be related to the article topic except as other tributaries of the Susquehanna, and that function is better served on the list article cited or in the category of the Susquehanna tributaries.

Fixed^King Jakob _C2 12:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly more to come. --ColonelHenry (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Fredlyfish4

As as starting point, I think the points I previously made on the article's talk page should be addressed:

• Briefly mention what the Shannon diversity index is.
• I think it is worthwhile mentioning that of the three trout species, only brook trout are native and rainbows are probably stocked for recreation (I'm not sure about brown, but I think they're also stocked).
• The last two-sentence paragraph before biology seems a bit out of place. Perhaps you could expand more on land cover in the watershed and other terrestrial species.
• The "highest density of organisms" paragraph could use some clarification. What organisms were studied and included in this? An organisms could be a fish or a bacterium and anything in between.
• With regard to glaciation, mention when the area was last glaciated. I expect this area was near the terminus of the Laurentide ice sheet during the last glacial period, and thus would have been one of the first ice-free areas once glacial retreat began.
• I also agree with the above that the overall quality of writing should be improved.

Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Manta ray

Nominator(s): LittleJerry and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured article because it gained GA status earlier this month and has since undergone a peer review and we think it is of a high enough standard to qualify. One would have thought that this enormous fish, with a wingspan of up to 8 metres, would be extensively studied. In fact it is difficult to research because it lives much of its life in mid-ocean and when spotted, tends to swim off into the distance and not be seen again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Drive by I'll review this in detail later this week, but just glancing I noticed a couple of obvious points Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some web refs don't have a publisher

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some on-line versions of real journals have retrieval dates, not needed (assuming ref 1 is a journal, couldn't get it to open Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Length in the lead is metric-only, needs Imperial conversion for the poor benighted yanks 07:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim Looks pretty good, some queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• references: #3 first letter of manta is lower case, unlike others, looks odd. #12 Binomial should be Roman text #43 George??
• 2001 study of mitochondrial DNA in 2001. — overdated

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• occur together sympatry. — missing word(s)?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• They have flattened bodies — "horizontally" would clarify

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• to demonstrate this — that illustrate this may be better

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• eats 13% of its body weight — about may be advisable, unless every manta does exactly this

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• You refer to remoras at least twice in contexts suggesting they are harmful, is that a fact?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• An individual manta may revisit...[34] They....

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• 6.3-million-gallon — metric?

Not know how to convert. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's 23848 cubic metres, assuming they are US gallons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I mean I don't know how to convert with the template. LittleJerry (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not mandatory to use the template, I never do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• third has recently — this will date, give the year

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not knowing about their gentle nature — Is this verifiable? Films have been known to distort the facts even when they are known (shock horror!)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'd put the Culture items in chronological order

That doesn't make sense to me. LittleJerry (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not actionable as part of this review, but I'd suggest archiving some of the web-only sites to avoid future linkrot

Although only the conversion, which I've converted, needs fixing, I'll wait to see what transpires with Yzx's more knowledgeable analysis before I go any further. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be on track again, and I have no outstanding issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Yzx

*The subfamily is Mobulinae, not Mobulidae

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*There should be distribution maps for each species, or one map that shows the range of both

There are none available. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

An option is to find a map for M. birostris that predates the taxonomic revision, and use it with a note.

Why? The reef manta's range is within the oceanic manta's range anyway. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Genus synonyms should be given

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A search at the Catalog of Fishes turns up more.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*The early view that "black" and "white" mantas -- there's no previous context to indicate what this means

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still not very clear, because you haven't yet introduced the notion that mantas have color morphs. It's also confusing because right after that sentence you start talking about how mantas can be divided into two species.

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Color morph should be linked somewhere

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant in that sentence since it's the first place it comes up in the article, i.e. "...some argued that the black color morph was a different species from the mostly white morph." -- Yzx (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*The first paragraph under "Evolutionary history" doesn't seem relevant. It should be rewritten to focus on manta biogeography and how geological changes have affected it

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no mention that mantas are descended from stingrays

• What do you mean by "descended"? Do you mean that there's no mention of mantas being included in the suborder Myliobatoidei? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Body proportions (length vs width) would be helpful

The article does already give the proportion of how length/width proportions and the sources only give exact measurements for width (disc). LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no description of what the teeth or dermal denticles look like, although both are mentioned in the article

Yes there is. In the third paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*Information on coloration is interrupted by the paragraph on physiology

The first two paragraphs are meant to give information on general appearance and physiology while the third is meant to discusses differences between the species. LittleJerry (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but it disrupts the flow of the section because you go from talking about external appearance, to physiology and anatomy, back to external appearance. I recommend putting the 1st and 3rd paragraphs together under "description" and have a separate section for anatomy/physiology.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Information in "Lifecycle" section conflates M. alfredi and M. birostris, e.g. data on maturation size, which is certainly different for the two species. It needs to be rewritten to make clear what info applies to which species, and which info applies to both

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Now only the Mozambique maturation size is assigned to species. If the Indonesian figure is for M. alfredi, this should be stated.

Looking at the refs, I'm still seeing passages cited to a study of one species being implied as common to both. Are there no additional sources that can be added?

This is difficult since the studies were done before the species classification split. See Cwmhiraeth's comment below. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The IUCN gives reproductive details for each species separately. -- Yzx (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant that maturation size should be specified for both species since they differ. Here, I've collected the data from the IUCN:

Location	alfredi male	alfredi female	birostris male	birostris female
Mozambique	~3 m	"slightly under" 4 m	4 m	"well over" 4 m
Maldives	2.5 m	3 m
Hawaii	2.8 m	3.4 m
Indonesia			3.8 m	4.1 m

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

*"Cephalic fin"/"cephalic lobe" are used inconsistently

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*Why are threats/conservation grouped with distribution? The two topics have little to do with each other

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend that the threats come before conservation, since one is a response to the other.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no mention of where manta catches come from (commercial vs artisanal fisheries, directed fishing vs bycatch, types of gear, etc)

Yes it does. It mentions both directed fisheries and bycatches. LittleJerry (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The only direct mention of bycatch I see is in the passage about Ecuador regulations, where it doesn't make sense because the fact that mantas are caught incidentally hasn't been introduced. The concept of bycatch should be linked explicitly to the discussion of net entanglements, because it's such a major concept in marine conservation. There's also no direct mention of how they're caught (harpoons? fishing line? nets?)

The article states "Similarly, mantas are often entangled in gill nets designed for smaller fish, often resulting in suffocation and death". That sounds like bycatching to me. Added capturing methods. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Bycatch should be referenced or linked under "Threats", or otherwise when readers encounter the term under "Status" they won't know what it means.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no mention of other economic uses besides gill rakers (e.g. meat, skin, liver oil)

• I don't believe there are any Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*The "Culture" section reads like a list of trivia. I'm not certain the fact that it's appeared in movies (which are cited to the movies themselves, a warning sign to me), etc is notable unless discussed in secondary sources

• Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The same notability concerns goes for the music (cited to album listings) and the car (whose source doesn't support the statement given). Is there no secondary source that states something like "the manta ray has inspired movies, music, etc"?

No, removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's no mention of the origin of manta rays being called "devilfish", or of the associated folklore

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*There's actually an interesting history behind the public perception of manta rays changing from dangerous to harmless (Peter Benchley's involved!)

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have more nitpicky comments but I'll hold off on those for now. As a general note, I'd be careful about taking information gathered from one species and applying it to both. -- Yzx (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some of the points you raise are a bit difficult to deal with. It was only in about 2009 that there was some agreement that there were 2 species, M. alfredi and M. birostris. It is therefore unclear in earlier papers which species was being described and as large parts of their ranges overlap and it is not possible to stop them and examine them in detail, it is still partly guesswork as to which species is being observed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Some more comments:

*IUCN status should not be used for genus-level articles or above. Only species (and populations within species) are given IUCN assessments

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*The type species and authority should be given

Redundant. The readers get the idea by reading the 3rd paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The type species is a fundamental taxonomic aspect of a genus, and it's the original name combination associated with the genus. You can't figure out what that is from the paragraph.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be the original combination. I've fixed it myself. -- Yzx (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*In the intro, size should be given for each species individually

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*There is information available about the evolution and phylogeny of mantas, both about how the two species relate to each other, and about how the genus relates to other rays

Added in cladogram made by Sasata. LittleJerry (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

*It used to be thought that batoids evolved from sharks, but molecular studies have shown that instead they share a common ancestor with the sharks -- the evolutionary origin of rays is a contentious subject, and the accuracy of this statement depends on how one defines "shark". There's no need to bring it up in this article

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Mantas evolved from bottom-dwelling stingrays and lost their stinging brabs while their pectrol fins became more wing-like -- only one of the mantas has lost its sting. Also, pectoral fin is misspelled

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*Studies in the oceans around Japan in 2010 -- "published" in 2010, not performed

• Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

*Maximum weights should be separate for the two species because they differ in maximum size

Weights were given before the species classification split. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I would phrase it like "the largest known manta weighed..." rather than "Mantas reach a...", so as to avoid implying both species

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*The fish's gill arches have palates of pinkish-brown spongy tissue -- I think you mean "pallet", as in a strip or band of something. "Palate" is a specific anatomical structure not related to gills

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's still there

Oops, fixed now. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*The source given for mating behavior ([20]) does not seem correct since it doesn't talk about mantas specifically.

• The source given discusses the mating procedures in cartilaginous fish, a group which includes manta, and is correct for the sentence that immediately precedes it. I have added an extra reference for the earlier sentences in the paragraph. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

*the developing embryos feed on the egg yolks -- "feed" is not exactly right since the embryos aren't using their mouths to eat them (this is a specific behavior called oophagy)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood; I meant that the manta isn't oophagous, so it should be "the embryos absorb the yolk" or something similar

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

*feed on milky secretions -- the term for this is histotrophy and again, they're not eating it. The histotroph is delivered directly into the gut through the spiracles

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*In 2011, mantas became strictly protected in international waters thanks to their recent inclusion -- was this inclusion in 2011? If so, then "recent" is redundant

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

*When was M. alfredi assessed by the IUCN?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

-- Yzx (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Article looks pretty good on comprehensiveness and accuracy. Since there's been a recent copyedit I'll go through it again for prose. -- Yzx (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Prose comments:

• Comma usage needs to be sorted throughout the article:

• The standard convention is there to be one behind the penultimate item in a list. For example, behind while the smaller, M. alredi, and behind entanglement in fishing nets, etc

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are commas missing where there should be, for example behind The scientific naming of mantas has had a convoluted history, Their large mouths are rectangular and face forward, Courtship is difficult to observe in this fast-swimming fish

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are extra commas where there shouldn't, for example larger M. birostris, found throughout tropical, subtropical and warm temperate oceans

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Some long sentences would benefit from commas separating the phrases, for example in The denticles have multiple cusps and overlap in M. birostris while those of M. alfredi are evenly spaced and lack cusps.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• which they imbibe through their open mouths -- "imbibe" seems like the wrong word; that's used for drinking

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Vulnerable" is used both as in a specific sense (Both species are listed as vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature) and a general sense (but are more vulnerable closer to shore) -- recommend capitalizing or quoting the IUCN status to distinguish, or using different words when it's the general sense

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• which originally meant a type of trap shaped like a blanket, traditionally used to catch rays -- comma overuse in this sentence, suggest "a type of blanket-shaped trap traditionally used to catch rays"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• cartilaginous fish with tough cartilage -- "cartilaginous" is redundant

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The sentence about the author of the genus is sandwiched between the sentences about the authors of the two species. If the intention is to be chronological, then more context needs to be added about the taxonomic history (e.g. "the manta was first described as ___ by ___. Then ___ placed it in the new genus Manta, etc)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Prince Alfred's manta ray -- this common name has not appeared before and the reader won't know what you're talking about

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both it and M. birostris occur in sympatry -- The "both" should be removed, or you should say what they're both sympatric with

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Although some small teeth have been found, few fossilized skeletons of manta rays have been discovered -- I don't understand the use of "although" here

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• one from the Oligocene in South Carolina and two in North Carolina from the Miocene and Pliocene -- parallel examples should be worded the same way

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• The source given for color morphs (ref 10) doesn't mention color morphs. Also, a white color morph is different from an albino

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• charcoal-colored ventral outlines on the fins -- pectoral fins?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• rete mirabiles may serve to warm the brain -- "serve to keep the brain warm". Subtle distinction, but the rete doesn't generate heat, it functions to conserve metabolic heat

Fixed. The source suggests it warms the brain so that what I'm going with. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• presses his ventral side against hers -- does the male turn upside-down, or no? This varies among rays

I don't know. Cwheairth has the source. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• He then inserts his claspers -- cartilaginous fish typically use only one clasper during mating, should check

See above. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• In Indonesia, M. birostris males appear to mature at 3.75 m (12 ft) while female -- "male" and "female" should agree in number

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the Maldives, male M. alfredi mature at a width of 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) while female mature at 3 m (9.8 ft) -- the way this sentence is constructed, the singular "female" doesn't work; try phrasing with "respectively" instead

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Female mantas mature appear to mature at 8–10 years -- extra "mature"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• the same adult female has been seen since 1989, implying that manta rays can live for fifty years or longer -- the numbers don't add up: mature at 10 yrs + 24 yrs since 1989 = age of 35 yrs

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Colons should be used in Swimming behavior in mantas differs across habitats; and These leaps come in three forms

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Individuals in a group may make aerial jumps in succession -- each individual in the group jumps in turn, or a single individual makes a series of jumps?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fish that have been fitted with radio transmitters have traveled as far as 1,000 km (620 mi) from where they were caught -- since this seems to be tracking data, is that 1000 km a straight-line distance?

Source doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• overexploitation -- link overfishing

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• has recently entered traditional Chinese medicine practices -- it's not exactly traditional if it's recent

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• By way of comparison -- just "by comparison" would be sufficient

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• or death if the wound is severe enough -- suggest "which may lead to death if the wound is severe enough"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• by disrupting ecological relationships and through the transmission of diseases -- suggest "increasing disease transmission"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Overall the prose is fair, albeit somewhat choppy with lots of short sentences. As I mentioned, better use of commas would improve its readability. -- Yzx (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing to support now. There are still some comma usage improvements/prose streamlining that can be made, but not enough to oppose on. I appreciate the nominators' diligence. -- Yzx (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cwmhiraeth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (Flickr, own work, PLOS, NOAA). Sources and authors provided.

• Flickr images show no signs of problems - OK.
• File:MantarayMocheLMC.jpg - OK (copyright check and cleanup done). GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relation to humans", subsection "Aquariums", paragraph 2: "The birth of the first manta ray in captivity took place there in 2007." An edit by Lfstevens has left the statement ambiguous. It is unclear if the manta ray was the first ever captive manta ray, or if its birth was the first birth in captivity. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comments reading through now: Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Their slow reproductive rate amplifies these threats. - "amplifies" sounds weird used like this, yet I agree it is a good fit. : "Potentiates" is more logical but less accessible. "Worsens" simple but does not quite carry the sense of it....I can't really think of a better word so not a deal-breaker per se.

• I have changed "amplifies" to "augments" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't like that. "Augment" is usually used in a context of a good thing, which this definitely isn't. What about "exacerbates"? -- Yzx (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I like "exacerbates" too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Physical appearance and anatomy - "Physical" is redundant here - what other types of appearance are there....?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Manta rays have many common names including Atlantic manta, Pacific manta and devilfish. The name "manta" is Spanish for cloak or blanket, a type of blanket-shaped trap traditionally used to catch rays.[3] The name "devilfish" derives from the horn-shaped cephalic fins that give the ray an "evil" appearance - the first sentence is partly redundant (as devilfish and manta are explained in the next two sentences) - if the geographic names don't correspond to species..were they originally names for forms or what? I think they may be best removed or else moved to after the two sentences on meaning. This para is a bit slim - surely there are some other vernacular names or bits to add to it?

Fixed and I do not see a problem with a slim opening paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The skin is covered in mucus which protects it from infection - has this been studied? Is it just a barrier or does it have antibiotic properties?

Source does not say but it does not appear to be unusual for fish or other vertebrates according to the main article. LittleJerry (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

FAir enough - I don't know much about marine biology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks alright otherwise - I agree with Yzx's note about some sentences being on the short side. I will have another read through later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• support - was looking for some glaringly short sentences and failed to find any deal-breakers left prosewise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Postscript - I am wondering whether the material on mythology/folklore/pop culture is a bit slim - I would have thought there was more out there. I did see this but some better sourcing would be in order maybe as I can't find else about it. Not a deal-breaker as alot of this material is debated..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that reference qualifies as a reliable source and I couldn't find another. "Manta Rays in Popular Culture" is pretty wishy-washy and not much help either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

agree, which is why this isn't a deal-breaker for my support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

LittleJerry has asked me to spotcheck the references so here goes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Sepkoski: A compendium of fossil marine animal genera. The hyperlink doesn't seem to be working at the moment. Perhaps the website is down.

I replaced it. LittleJerry (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Dean: The evolution of cranial design, diet, and feeding mechanisms in batoid fishes. Due to my Wikipedia skin setting, I am not able to view the phylogeny tree. The second statement is supported by the source.

6. Froese: Family Myliobatidae – Eagle and manta rays. The source does not mention superorder Batoidea. The rest of the information is verified in the source.

Added cite that supports Batodiea.

13. ITIS: Manta birostris (Walbaum, 1792). The source mentions the surname (Walbaum) but does not state the full name (Johann Julius Walbaum).

Well Johann Julius Walbaum seems to be the only Walbum would was a taxonomist and the source is meant to confirm his authority on the species, not his full name. LittleJerry (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, the source is supposed to able to verify the information in the text. In this case, that includes his full name and the source does not do that. I found this reference which includes his full name and indicates his interest in the taxonomy of fish, although it doesn't actually mention birostris. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

When in taxonomic doubt, try the original source. Here's Walbaum's Petri Artedi sueci genera piscium, where the species was described. His full name's on the cover, and birostris is on page 535. -- Yzx (talk) 01:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine, removed the first and middle name. The original source cannot be used for the statement "The specific name birostris is ascribed to Walbaum (1792) by some authorities". LittleJerry (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Here, the entry from Catalog of Fishes that describes the attribution to both Donndorff and Walbaum, with relevant citations. Seems silly to remove an obviously true fact like the guy's name. -- Yzx (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

20. Cicimurri: Late Oligocene sharks and rays from the Chandler Bridge Formation. The information is verified in the source.

25. Ari: Encephalization and brain organization of mobulid rays. This information is verified in the source. (Interestingly, I also discovered in the source that Manta birostris has the largest brain size of any fish.)

28. Marshall: Reproductive ecology of the reef manta ray Manta alfredi in southern Mozambique. I only have access to the abstract so I am unable to verify the first statement. The second statement is verified in the abstract.

31. Marshall: Biology and Population Ecology of Manta Birostris in Southern Mozambique. This PhD thesis requires a University of Queensland login to download, so I am not able to verify the statements. The first statement, from "Biology", subsection "Lifecycle", paragraph 2 is: "In southern Africa M. birostris matures at 4 m (13 ft) while females reach maturity slightly over that." Does the first half of the sentence refer to males?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

38. Manta Trust: Manta fisheries. With the first statement, the source describes the meat as "grainy" or "sandy" rather than "tough". The second statement is verified in the source although the source actually mentions more places than listed in the statement.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

43. Convention on Migratory Species: COP10 Outcome. The source verifies the statement.

48. Georgia Aquarium: About Nandi. The source indicates that mantas are rare in captivity, but doesn't actually say that this is due to their size. (This is arguably self-evident.) More importantly, this source could be used as a reference for the subsequent statements that are actually about Nandi. The source used for those statements is said to be the homepage of Henry F. Mollet, although the information in the source was collected by Filipe Pereira. While the information in the source looks plausible, I am not convinced that it should be regarded as a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards.

Replaced. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

References 48 & 49 are actually the same source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Conservation issues", subsection "Status", paragraph 2 uses the same reference throughout. Rather than repeating the inline citation every sentence or two, would it be reasonable to use a single citation at the end of the paragraph? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I Could Fall in Love

Nominator(s): Jona^{talk to me} 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because...I have worked on this article for about a year and searched through countless websites and books to bring this stub article to a GA. I then asked Gareth Griffith-Jones if he can copy-edited the article, which he did back in August 2012. His copy-editing skills really helped the article but I needed more eyes and asked Noleander if he could take a second look over the article. After finishing his points he made and performing another extensive search for more reviews I believe I am done with this article and it is at its fullest. I believe it is FA worthy and so I am here to present "I Could Fall in Love" a love song by American singer Selena. Enjoy Jona^{talk to me} 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• Grammar? - "Critics praised the song for Selena's emotive enunciation, remarked upon the similarity to songs recorded by Celine Dion, Brandy Norwood, and TLC" - grammar doesnt seem right. Missing "and" before "remarked"?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Extra word: "... and being awarded the Among Most Played Song..." - Can "being" be removed?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Logical sequence: Consider reversing two sentences: "Although "I Could Fall in Love" peaked at number .." and " Fearing that "I Could Fall in Love" might...". Readers might understand it better as "The song was not released as a single because .... Thus it was not eligible for ..."

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Plural: " "I Could Fall in Love" became one of Selena's most famous and recognizable recording ..." - "recordings"

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Last name? - ". Selena and A. B. .." - Why not refer to A.B. by his last name Quintanilla? it is odd to use a first name (or initials).

• Because Selena's last name is Quintanilla. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Clarify: " Because Thomas was unable to add any more vocals to a new song, "I Could Fall in Love", he performed an a cappella version to assist their understanding. Selena and A. B. instantly appreciated the existing lyric ..." - Not sure what was happening there. Did Thomas have writers block? was he asking Selena and AB to help with the lyrics? They then concluded that the lyrics were satisfactory as-is?

• When I saw the video I didn't get it either but that's what he said. I don't know what a writers block is, he wasn't asking them to add lyrics to the song, my understanding is that he didn't apply backing vocals to the song or something I'm not sure but since it is part of the songs development I added his statement. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If neither you nor I can understand what the speaker is saying, it should be removed from the article. The article should only contain information that is clear to readers. --Noleander (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I asked for help from the Wikiproject Music to help with our understanding. If no one can seem to understand this or help I will remove it from the article. Jona^{talk to me} 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: " Although Selena had to return later when Thomas was able to provide additional vocals, Selena's husband, Chris Perez – who had overshadowed the recording sessions – stated that the recording was wrapped up in one day" - Two issues: (1) "overshadowed" is probably not the best word .. that has an ominous overtone, like Perez dominated the recordings ... is "overseen" better? "Participated"? "Witnessed"? "Monitored"? (2) why even mention the husband? Is there a dispute whether or not the song was recorded in a single day? if there is no dispute, better to just not mention the husband as the source.

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Footnotes at end: ""I Could Fall in Love" is a mid-tempo[22][23] pop ballad[24] and R&B[23] song with soul,[10] pop, and soft rock influences.[25]" - The footnotes in mid sentence interfere with readers ability to read. Suggest move all footnotes to the end of the sentence. Suggest use a single footnote, and put all the citations/sources into a single footnote, using the WP:CITEBUNDLE approach.

• I don't like citebundle because it's too much work for me, also the citations are like that because each ref doesn't support each claim so I can't put them at the period if they don't claim the whole sentence. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Also CITEBUNDLE for "... a keyboard, a flamenco guitar,[23] Spanish guitar, and ..." and similar footnotes.

• Per above. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Tense: The first paragraph of the Composition section contains a mix of present & past tense. Mostly it looks correct: past tense for reviews; present tense for attributes of the song. But is " "I Could Fall in Love" is classified as ..." better as past tense?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Multiple footnotes: Although not a requirement for FA status, I think it looks better to avoid multiple footnotes, especially 3 or more, at the end of a sentence, e.g. " ... critics naming them "confessional ballads"[28][34][35] ". See WP:CITEBUNDLE.

• Not a fan of those unless it's four or more. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: "...contained a John Secada-esque demeanor ..." - contained & demeanor dont seem to go together. Maybe "presented ... demeanor" or "contained ... style" or "had ...style" or "had ... feel".

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Whilst vs While - Both are used in the article; pick one and use it throughout (probably While).

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Amongst vs Among - Both are used; stick with Among.

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Grammar: ""I Could Fall in Love" dominated the Top 40 radio stations, well received by critics." - Change somehow. Maybe " ... and was well ..."; or "ICFIL was well received by critics and dominated ..."

• The song's domination was well received by critics, the song had a mixed response not a positive one. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why name? "A San Antonio disc jockey, Suzy Camacho told .." - prior sentences do not identify the specific source/individual, so why mention this particular DJ?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Plural: " "I Could Fall in Love" became one of Selena's most recognizable recording." - change to "recordings".

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wording: " Los Jovenes Del Barrio recorded a homage cover .." - Aren't all covers homage covers? Or does "homage cover" have a specific meaning in the music business?

• Done. Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Disambig links check out okay. Overall article layout seems fine; article is comprehensive and thorough. I have not done a spotcheck on sources.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments I have done and/or replied. Best, Jona^{talk to me} 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing to Support based on recent improvements. Have not done a spot-check of sources. --Noleander (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Hey Jona! The chart table ref for Billboard needs to be updated since the main website relaunched and screwed everything up. I'd recommend using the singlechart template to remedy this. More comments will be on the way. ;) Erick (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Erick, can you provide an article as a model so I know how to add that since I never used that template before? Thanks, Jona^{talk to me} 22:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, try this. If you still need help, I'll be glad to assist as always. Erick (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Like this? Best, Jona^{talk to me} 22:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much, but you have the refnames the same. Let me help you out here. EDIT: Okay, I fixed the references and changed the refnames to correspond each chart as well as added accessdats. Be sure to apply refname where necessary. Erick (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks bud can't wait for your review . Best, Jona^{talk to me} 23:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I can't find anything really wrong that stands out so I'm giving out my support. Erick (talk) 04:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Support on terms of prose and overall quality of article. Great job. — DivaKnockouts 03:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your support! It's very appreciated. Best, jona^{talk to me} 04:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Media check - mostly all OK (fair-use, CC). Sources and authors provided. Just 1 fixable problem (Done):

• Sound sample - per WP:NFCC each separate usage needs a separate specific fair-use rationale (just copy the FUR for the album and change the rationale header and text to fit the second article's usage). Suggestion: consider using one of the various FUR-templates for a better overview.
• Other fair-use criteria are OK.
• File:Jennifer_Lopez_in_Time_100.jpg - OK. The permission handling of the original file is sub-optimal, but there's no reason to doubt the permission itself (no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks for your review. Best, jona^{talk to me} 13:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources review: Only the first column checked thus far, but a number of issues require attention

• Ref 4: I can find nothing in this source that supports the cited sentence: "She recorded 'Is It the Beat?', 'Where Did the Feeling Go?', and 'Only Love'." None of these songs are mentioned in the source. In any event, the source name should not be italicised.

• Fixed to three songs. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 5: the nature of the source is not clear. 60 minutes in what?

• That's what the template gives, I didn't write that. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Templates are not tablets of stone. It is up to you to make clear the nature of the source to the reader, for example by adding (film) or appropriate description to the title in the template. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Added documentary. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 8 is in Spanish – this should be noted. Where in the source is the cited statement covered?

• Removed can't find it. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 12: What is the source? Who published this?

• It's a source from the TV series Biography. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then, as per ref 5, you need to add a fuller description, to assist readers who know nothing of WP template formats. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 17: In the absence of an online link, page references should be given. Also applies to 25, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37 and no doubt others.

• I do not have those newspapers in hand and got them over the archives on google. So there's no saying what page number they are in. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Then you should include the online links to the archives, if that is how you accessed the information. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia told me not to include a url to subscription-only references because it doesn't benefit the reader or reviewer since the claim will not in the text provided. That's why I did not include an urls for subscription-only sources. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Refs 18 and 19: the discs in question need better identification than "EMI Latin"

• I believe I filled every possible section in that template. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 22: Check link. All it gives me is a message: "Your search session has expired"

• Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (It's now 21) What did you fix? I'm getting the same error message. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removed the link and replaced it for Lopez lip-sync claim. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 30 requires registration. This should be noted.

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Further comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Here they are:

Second column

• Ref 38: can you clarify the nature of the source?

• I added what the source states. What else you want me to do? jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I wrote the wrong comment - the nature of the sources is clear. However, there needs to be a page ref or online archive link. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 45: the link goes to the wrong NYDN page

• The archive system is messing up. I archived that page several months ago, and not sure why its acting up. The page is here but it won't let me access it. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now ref 44) You need either to resolve this, or find an alternative reference. Or remove the material from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removed. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 46: Spanish language source - note required.

• It is noted, something is wrong with the template. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 47: Author? page reference?

• None given. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Author unimportant, but regarding the page number, my earlier comments apply. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 49: If "PopMatters" is not a print source it should not be italicised.

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 54: Page reference required.

• Does not provide them. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• See my earlier comments on this matter. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 57: Please check the link. Each time I try it, it crashes Firefox.

• It works fine for me. (I'm using Chrome). jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now ref 56) It still crashes Firefox. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I asked for help here. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 80: Allmusic is not a print source and should not be italicised

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 89: This is a subscription service - needs to be noted

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Third column

• Page references required: 94, 96, 99, 100, 105, 106 and more
• Ref 97: Incorrect link (see 45)

• It's not incorrect the webcite archive system seems to be down at the moment. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now 96) If it's not working, you can't use it. Suggest find an alternative or remove the cited material. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Removed. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 102: Source does not support the cited sentence: "In Riverside, California, program directors reported that "I Could Fall in Love" was among their top three hits being played on their radio stations".

• Please read the statement noted above ("On the radio -- Program directors around the country name their top three hits and predictions for a fourth"). jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 107: Faulty link, please check

• Works fine for me. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now 106) For me, the source page shows for a second, then blanks. I suggest you ask other users to test the link to see if it works for them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• I asked for assistance. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 108: Nature of source not clear

• It's a citation from an episode. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Episode from what - TV series? See my earlier comments about making the nature of sources clearer. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 113: Another Spanish source - needs noting

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 125: Not available to users outside the US - needs noting

• Can you link me a template that specifies this? jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• (Now 124) I don't know of a template for this; you can add your own note. The source contains a link to mtv.uk, but this does not take me to the source article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 126: "page not found"

• Fixed. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 129: What makes "BlogTo" a reliable source?

• Removed. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Some work to be done on sources, quite a lot of it simple presentation stuff, before the article is ready for promotion. Although I have not read the whole article I picked up a few prose glitches needing attention (there could be others):

• "'I Could Fall in Love' received generally positive response from music critics" (either "a generally positive response" or "generally positive responses")

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "similarities with" → "similarities to"

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Teresa Jusino of Popmatters expressed that English-speaking music fans no longer remember Selena's name..." ("expressed the view that...")

• Done. jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• "which has received positive praised by music critics." ("praise from", not "praised by". And is there any praise that is not positive?)

• Where is this located? jona^{talk to me} 18:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Please ping my talk when you're through (or if you require clarification) as I shan't be watching this page. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• There are still a few sources issues to be resolved. To summarise:

• In a few cases you need to add a little more detail to your template entries, so that the nature of the source (film, tv episode, etc) is clear.
• When newspapers or journal articles are cited, you should provide either a page reference or an online link to the archived text.

• I don't know what advice Sandy gave you, but it is very common to include links to online services that require payment, and to add the (subscription required) template. It's then up to readers and/or researchers as to whether they wish to pay for access. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• I tried searching through Sandy and Nikki's archives to see where that discussion is located to no luck. I am currently working on this task and finding those urls. Best, jona^{talk to me} 23:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Best, jona^{talk to me} 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 21 Link not working
• Ref 44 Link not working
• Ref 56 Link is still crashing Firefox.

• Works fine for me on Firefox. — DivaKnockouts 15:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, it's maybe just a local problem for me. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ref 96 Link not working
• Ref 106 Link is not working properly

• It's now 103, still not working for me. Any luck with other users?

• This one is working as well. — DivaKnockouts 22:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Is this still an issue? jona^{talk to me} 00:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

*Ref 124 needs a "US users only" note.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

At Jona: Try archiving the sites he's having using WebCite and let's see if that works. Erick (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Those that he mentioned were archived at WebCite but something is wrong with their system that it's not working. So I had to replaced them or removed them. Best, jona^{talk to me} 23:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Charles Inglis (engineer)

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an article I created five years ago and have slowly been building up ever since. It passed a Mil Hist A class review last month during which Dank kindly copyedited it. I believe the article to be as complete as I can make it and suitable for consideration as an FA. If promoted I believe this would become our only FA on a civil engineer (we have a few aeronautical engineers and an electrical engineer and Isambard Kingdom Brunel was an FA in 2006). Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2013 (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) 23:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this in some detail at the ACR Dumelow links in his nomination statement (and examined the edits made since then), and I believe it to be of featured quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Lake_Biwa_Canal_Museum_of_Kyoto_IMG_5473_a-9.JPG: medals are considered 3D works, so you need a licensing tag for the medal as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added an additional licence for this image - Dumelow (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: I could find very little to fault with this article; as far as I could tell it satisfies the criteria for FA status and thus I'd like to provide my support. Nice job. Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment on sources: It would be more convenient to readers if online links were all contained within the citations (as they indeed are in most cases). In refs 2, 5, 6, 37 and 56, however, the reader has to go to the bibliography and search, before finding the link. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello Brian. I have always kept journal articles and books separate from other sources so they can be cited by page. I have played around a bit and converted all my citations to Harvnb style. This allows the reader to click the citation to be taken to the relevant entry in the bibliography. Hopefully this solves that problem (and I think more elegantly than repeating the full citation in the references section). Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XIII-2

Nominator(s): PresN 06:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, it's been a while but I'm back, and with a non-indie video game. Since I brought Final Fantasy XIII to FA (a year and a half ago), I thought it only right to try to do the same with Final Fantasy XIII-2 before the third game has a chance to come out. The article was given a very thorough GAN review a month ago by Mark Arsten, including a pretty in-depth look at the prose, so I'm optimistic that we shouldn't have too much trouble with what I hope will be my 10th featured article. Thanks all for reviewing! (Note: I'm currently in the Wikicup, but I fully expect to be knocked out before this FAC concludes. This article will not be submitted for the Wikicup.) --PresN 06:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Co-nomination/Support - I am one of the top four editors of the article (one of them is the community banned user G-Zay) and I helped brought FFXIII to FA and I have done extensive work on the article. I think I am very optimistic about bringing this up to FA status. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Were G-Zay's edits checked before nomination? « Ryūkotsusei » 19:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I think so. Please see User talk:G-Zay/Source problems. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he mainly wrote back before the game came out, and the entire article was rewritten for GA. --PresN 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Be explicit as to what "lazy environment design" Edge refers to, because earlier, they describe the environments as "entirely captivating". Also - what does GameRankings give you that Metacritic doesn't? Its inclusion is redundant. - hahnchen 20:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Edge issue done. Please don't use FAC to push a change in how VG articles as a whole handle metareviews- there's a current discussion at WT:VG about it that is a more appropriate venue to build a consensus. --PresN 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The WT:VG discussion is messy and multi-faceted. I'm asking you to justify the inclusion of GameRankings, it's something I've asked consistently at FAC. Sometimes, like in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cave Story/archive1, the nominator just admits that its redundant. Metacritic is a reliable source for providing a critical consensus, we don't need duplicate figures confirming that. - hahnchen 19:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• It is redundant, and I've removed it rather than argue about it, but again: FAC is not the place to try to influence whether video game articles across Wikipedia use both Metacritic and Gamerankings, please try to form a consensus at WP:VG instead. --PresN 19:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

As messy and multifaceted as the discussion may be, interrupting an FAC when you already have an active discussion on the point going on right now is disruptive. Lets focus on evaluating the article based on current agreed upon criteria for evaluation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It could probably be better to have this discussion go on in the talk page for this nomination instead. I mean if they continue it. GamerPro64 21:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I love to have a critique usually of an FAC, but I see no issues: it is edit war free, well referenced, properly formatted, has good images, and is well written. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Image check - mostly all OK (appropriate fair-use, CC, sources and authors provided), but File:Final_Fantasy_XIII-2_gameplay.jpg needs work: (Done, fair-use checked).

• Replace "n.a." with a valid brief explanation, why you believe those criteria are met (NFCC#1 and #2, see other screenshots as template).
• A fair-use image should have a size of max. 100,000 pixels ("minimal usage"). Needs reduction and deletion of the larger version. GermanJoe (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • 100,000 is a guideline. File:Final Fantasy XIII-2 gameplay.jpg is sufficiently low resolution, it is over 6 times smaller than its native size in the game. - hahnchen 18:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
    • It is a guideline - which editors usually should follow. Is there a good reason, why the image needs to be higher resolution to serve its purpose? The underlying fair-use policy requires editors to use non-free images as minimal as possible, regarding both quantity and quality. GermanJoe (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I would argue that it is not high resolution enough. It looks blurry on my iphone5, so making it blurrier would make it dip below an acceptably low level of quality. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
      • 100,000 is an arbitrary figure which ignores all context, what matters is whether this screenshot is low resolution, which it is. It's not even close to SDTV quality, let alone HDTV. The image is busy, and low on contrast - "Decreasing the resolution even further would render the graphical details indiscernible." - as covered in the rationale. - hahnchen 19:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• FUR updated; I'll take a look at decreasing the size later on tonight. --PresN 20:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, PresN. I agree with the above comments, if the lower res image is not usable for the stated purpose. I did a quick test and especially texts and smaller elements seem to be the biggest problem, but please double-check. GermanJoe (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, to get it below 100000px, it had to be shrunk from 500x282 to 420x237, and it really does become just unintelligible at that size- the text is unreadable and the game area (which is a mess at the best of times) starts to look like a blur of color if you have anything less than perfect vision. I think it's going to have to stay as it is- it's already diminished from 1080p, and the graphics were never designed to be shrunk that far. --PresN 15:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I struck this point. Thanks for checking the lower resolution, fair-use is OK then. GermanJoe (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment "The Xbox 360 version only reached 48th, primarily because there were few Xbox 360 customers in Japan." That might be true, but it appears the source referenced here speculates it was due to lack of demand from the female audience (which isn't mentioned in the wikipedia article...), and doesn't mention the supposed low sales of xboxes in Japan. Ryan Norton 14:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speculation removed. --PresN 17:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess what I should say is that the part mentioned was the first source I took a look at. I don't have time at the moment but you might want to do a quick spot check if you aren't 100% sure of some sources. Ryan Norton 02:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Cirt

(having stumbled here from my FAC)

Please reply below these comments, and not interspersed in them, thanks!

1. Someone should really take on Final Fantasy (video game) as a quality improvement project and improve it up to WP:FA. It's the first one in the series, after all. :P
2. Gameplay - seems odd for this sect to have one subsection. Could the initial info that appears in this sect before Combat system be given its own sub-subsection title? Maybe something like Character control or something like that?
3. Gameplay - two-sentence-long-paragraph at end of this top part of this sect. Could this either be expanded upon, or merged into another paragraph, above?
4. Combat system - might this image File:Final Fantasy XIII-2 gameplay.jpg look a little better on display for the reader, if it were aligned to the right of the text, instead of the left?
5. Plot, subsect, Setting - okay I started reading this and have no idea what that sentence is talking about. More background info is needed before diving right into this, will explain more in the next point.
6. I'd strongly suggest this article be informative for the average reader who might not have played every single prior game. Much like an episode of The Simpsons should describe what seems obvious to fans of the show. Perhaps solve this with a Background sect, with basic basic basic info assuming someone has never heard of Final Fantasy the genre, before? Maybe start with a sentence like: "Final Fantasy is a video game series that ..." ?
7. Story - two-sentence-long-paragraph at the end of this sect. Could this either be expanded upon, or merged into another paragraph, above?
8. Reception - maybe break this into 2 sub subsects, with titles, Sales and Reviews, or something like that? Any info on marketing? Then maybe expand the Sales sect, and add that marketing and release info, there?
9. References - ambiguous date formatting system uses just numbers. Could you please go through and replace this with format with words, for example instead of "2012-01-28", use "28 January 2012", and also for the accessdates?
10. See also - perhaps you could add a See also sect, with a few links and some relevant Portals? Thanks very much for this most informative and interesting quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
    1. It's on the list, it's just a lot harder to find sources for a 25-year-old game than it is for a 1-year-old game.
    2. Done
    3. Merged
    4. Moved to right; there used to not be enough text to block if from getting pushed by the infobox
    5. Answered in next point
    6. Alright, tried to give a bit more backstory. None of the Final Fantasy numbered games have anything to do with each other plotwise, but I agree that the setting section just launched into 13-2 without adequately explaining what happened in 13.
    7. Merged
       1. I disagree with this. This is extra material that happens after the credits (with all requirements full-filled of course) and doesn't need merged. --JDC808 ♫ 06:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    8. Sub-section'd; I don't have any marketing information- they didn't push as hard with this, as a sequel, as they did with FF13 itself.
    9. I'd really rather not, if possible. WP:DATEFORMAT says that it's fine (it's year-month-day, btw, not ambiguous), I've used it for 6 FAs and dozens of GAs and FLs, and it ensures that they're all consistent, rather than the mix of 28 January and January 28 you get usually. It's a lot of work for no gain to change them all, in my opinion.
    10. I added a section with the "Final Fantasy" book; any suggestions as to links that are not already included in the article proper?

Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Thanks very much for responding to my comments, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

1. I've been going through and doing some copy-editing. Under "Combat system", I moved this sentence, "The Paradigm system allows the player to program six different roles, which the characters can assume to perform certain formations in battle in response to specific conditions." to the beginning of the last paragraph, because it made more sense for it to be there.
2. Something I noticed was missing, the Crystarium system. There should be some mention of that.
3. There also isn't much mention of the magic system, other than "when the enemy is struck by attacks or spells." and under plot, there's a couple of mentions of magical abilities.
4. Made a new section in Development for Downloadable content. You can change this if you disagree.
5. I'm not saying remove these, but I personally don't see the point of having pictures of the director or composer when their respective article's can do that. When I'm reading an article about a game, I don't care what the people who made this look like, and if I happen to want to know, I'll look at their article and if there happens to not be one there, I'll Google search it. It's not something I feel is important for a game article. Screenshots, early artwork, early development shots are what we really want to see. You have one screenshot, which is good.

These are my only concerns. --JDC808 ♫ 06:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ra.One

Nominator(s): ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the article's fourth Featured Article nomination. I've done my very best to trim this article down, improve its prose and rectify the previously mentioned problems. The word count is around 5,800, which is roughly half to one-third of what it was in prior nominations; I believe that this size is acceptable (I do realize that 10,000+ words were excessive, and I've accordingly made cuts). I hope that the article now meets the criteria, since its tiring to repeatedly get rejected. In case work is left, please do not hesitate to point out the problems to me. Hope you enjoy! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment
• It can be shortened further. For example, the whole possible sequel section can be summarized into two or three sentences and added at the end of reception.
• The reference 6 of costumes, soundtrack, 7 of statistics, screening, 7 and 9 of controversies, televion and home media, 5 of box office: all have technical errors in the title of reference; they have woe wikilinks embedded within title which are appearing weird.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
• One thing for sure, the article does not look intimidating anymore!--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

As a note, each instance of linking in a reference is to include the symbol for the Indian rupee, which only recently became a unicode character and so an image was provided in the mean time. I'm guessing that the change to Lua from the previous templating system for the refs do not take well to including an image. Chris857 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm working on the Sequel section; I've moved it out of the main article, and will summarize it soon.
• I was hoping that somebody could help me with the problem. I don't want to revert back to the old Rs. format since its officially discontinued, and the symbol is used throughout the article. If anybody can tell me what to do, I'd be much obliged. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• I hope that's a good thing :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Dwaipayan
• Starting with Production: "Sinha was apprehensive of retaining Khan's support after his previous film Cash (2007) became a commercial failure..." Whose previous film? Sinha or Khan?

Clarified.

• "Sinha subsequently declared that he would not have approached anybody other than Khan with the film's script" Why do we need this information? This sounds unnecessary to me, unless any more significance is added.

Removed.

• "Sinha described Ra.One as less of a film and more of an "audacious dream."". again, it can be removed. Or else, explain why was it audacious?

Removed, though I guess it was audacious due to the scale of the film.

• "He stated that he wanted to "make a film that gives me the right to deserve the iconic status that I’ve got for 20 years" Somewhat promotional! Can be considered to be paraphrased or removed; but can be kept also for now.

Can you suggest a suitable alternative?

• "He declined to make the film in English, feeling that "cracking Hollywood on their terms" was unnecessary" This seems somewhat enforced. Why would they even think of making a commercial Bollywood movie in English? Context missing.

Added some context, but you should check this. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• "After the release of My Name Is Khan (2010), the studio focused..." What is the relationship between the studio and My Name Is Khan?

Added. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• "... who was contracted after he met Khan at Yash Raj Studios. While the latter began work on the storyboards..." Here, the latter becomes Khan, instead of Chouthmal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Rectified.

• Ok, this is probably a personal preference issue. This whole detail about exact dates in the second paragraph of Principal photography in this version is not only boring, but confusing. Do we really need such amount of details for photography dates?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe its necessary. However, if you feel, I can remove it or wait for another opinion. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We can wait for now.

• "the Kareena wala red": this needs an English meaning, non-Hindi reader won't understand wala.

Removed since its difficult to literally translate a colloquial word like wala.

• "In early October 2011, a partnership deal was being finalized by the distributors to allow the film to be released in China across 1,000 prints.": any update on this? Was the deal done?

There has been no update on this so far.

• "UFO digital theaters": what are UFO digital theaters? any wikilink or explanation?

I have added a web link to the website; is that alright? There is no Wikipedia article on this, but it is notable since articles frequently mention these theaters for big releases.

• "The film was screened for test audiences to study and gauge the film's appeal across different age groups". You mean the the screening for the cast of Alwaya Kabhi Kabhi? Or, were there other test screenings as well?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarified. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Referencing looks a little strange and I spot a lot of broken references. I'd rather see all of the references under one section without the broken links. See Mother India. Please don't sub head references, I think it would look a lot better if you used Col 2 rather than 3 and list all references in one section. Production, Development - the first box actually sticks out of the left side of my screen into the margin, why is this? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

By broken references, do you mean dead links or references where the CS1 errors are present? The total number of references numbers over 200, so I categorized them for convenience; however, I could revert it to an ordinary format (but it can take time). Are you sure I should go ahead with that? As for the boxes, I don't know; there seems to be no problem with my computer, and no other editor has mentioned this. Perhaps there's a screen ratio problem in your browser? Thanks. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Certain you should overhaul the references, yes. But ask Dwai or others see what they think and agree. Check refs Costumes :6 Statistics :7 Controversies :7 and 9 , Economics:5 ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think he means the ones where the formatting is broken and are marked "Wikilink embedded in URL title" (e.g. Costumes ref 6); there are several of them throughout the reference section. Also, the official site external link isn't working for me. I also suggest setting column widths for the reference section i.e. {{reflist|group=e|30em}} rather than {{reflist|group=e|3}}, and then that will let the reader's browser set the number of columns dependent on the size of their viewing screen. Betty Logan (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do mean that. I must say that there is something rather unsettling reading this and seeing how many sub articles you've broadened out into during the cutting process. For me this is a little overwhelming and I kinda feel like I've eaten a horse after viewing the staggering amount of bulk you've put into this one film.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have overhauled the references, so that its now back in the traditional format. I've also replaced the problematic errors with Rs. for the time being, even though I still want a solution regarding the symbol. If anybody can help me in this regard, then please do so. Dr. Blofeld, are you referring to the main article alone or to the entire Ra.One topic (which is admittedly very large and in-depth)? Betty, since I can't find any properly working website regarding the specific digital theater chain, I've simply wikilinked it to digital cinema for now; is that alright? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The link I was referring to was this one (the first one in the external links section). It doesn't work for me. It may be a regional thing, but it needs to be checked. Betty Logan (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It isn't working for me either, so I've removed it. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I get the impression looking at the article that you might have rushed the cutting a little and get a strong feeling of bloat, yes, but so many sub headers I think in part might create the illusion of this. You can tell it was a gigantic article and was quickly split off to cut it down quickly which I think has affected it a bit. The article is already looking better with the reference sorting. I'll give this a thorough read later on in the week, my initial thoughts might be too harsh.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I may have rushed it under pressure the last time, but I can assure you that post the third FAC, I've ensured that there are proper summaries for each sub-article which are placed in the main article. Please take your time; your input is always appreciated. Cheers, ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I was asked to look in on this article on my talk. The major problems I see are prose-related (oh, there are other issues, such as overlinking, most notably of crore: I think it's a judgment call whether crore should be linked once, or once per section, but it doesn't need to be linked every time. That's a minor issue though). I will note that in dealing with other articles, I have had to read books from India, and the written form of English, even in scholarly books, can seem slightly informal to an American or Briton. That's not quite what I'm talking about here. Some of it is phrasings (at least from my point of view, and I like to consider myself well-read), which often make the article seem vague. I think a lot of it is what in the film world is called continuity.

The article is quite good. But all these glitches detract from a fine effort. My suggestion is that you find someone who is not familiar with the movie and a good writer to ask all these inconvenient and niggling questions which you will see below (and these are examples, I did not try to find them all) to alert you to these things and help you correct them. Let me give some examples:

• " Khan faced difficulties with his superhero suit and prosthetic makeup,[14][15] and injured his left knee." (it's unclear if the two are related, though we are told, in another section, that the suits were extremely hot to wear. We are told that he postponed knee surgery to complete the film. With all that, and I'm mindful of the fact that you're trying to save space, it probably should be stated how he hurt his knee.

• We are not told until the "Reception" section that the film is marketed for children. That surely explains the final sentence of the article, but it's the sort of thing that should probably be in the lede.
• "essayed", used twice in rapid succession and then never again, is an unusual term. To give the first use in full-sentence form, "The major characters of Ra.One were essayed by protagonists Shahrukh Khan and Kareena Kapoor, and primary antagonist Arjun Rampal." The actors are not protagonists or antagonists, their characters are.
• The phrase "faced … " (most often difficulties or a variant, but also a number of other issues) is used no fewer than 11 times in this article. That's way too many.
• "Three actors had initially been considered for the lead female role; Kapoor was ultimately chosen because she insisted on playing the part." That seems an odd qualification (the other two were not insistent?)
• "and Verma learnt capoeira." The relevance of this is unexplained.
• "He also said that he wanted to make a film dedicated to father-son relationships" At least judging by the plot description, the only father I'm aware of is killed off quite early. I'm guessing that G.One becomes a father-like figure, based on his appearance and close association with Prateek and Sonia, but if so, you might want to include some hints to that effect in the plot description. Speaking of which ...

The plot description left me scratching my head a bit, but not having seen the film, I must rely on what's given:

• You say that Ra.One is upset because Prateek (as Lucifer) has reached the second level. Given that it is impossible for either character to die until the third level, this seems odd. Wouldn't the game player have reached at least the second level during testing?
• "In order to impress his skeptical son Prateek (Verma), and upon the request of his wife Sonia (Kapoor), Shekhar uses his son's idea that the antagonist should be more powerful than the protagonist." Isn't his overarching motivation to save his job?
• "He uses a wireless technology (which Jenny had introduced in a conference)" "in a conference" means what?
• How is it that Shekhar's lie that he is Lucifer exposed by scanning his identity card?
• "He convinces Jenny of the same when they see the destroyed game laboratory," Presumably this is what was meant by the mainframe malfunctioning! The two do not follow. I made mainframes malfunction many times in my student days, not one destroyed the laboratory (of course, technology was primitive then).
• " the latter creates ten copies of himself. ... The pair realize that only one of the ten Ra.Ones has a shadow" I count eleven, given the inclusion of the original Ra.One.

You get the idea. Phrasings, plot points which you know perfectly well, but because you do know it so well, you don't quite see how it comes at someone who is reading the article cold. As someone might do, who is planning to see the film or has heard something about it. Find someone who can point out all these things to you and help you correct them. That's my advice.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've read this gradually over last night and today and I agree with Wehwalt. It is a comprehensive decent article and a commendable effort, but it really does lack the polish needed for FA. The prose in parts is a little clumsy and has some poorly constructed phrases which are not even close to FA quality prose. It doesn't, in my opinion, display the highest level of quality of prose I'd expect for an FA and the article really feels heavy and convoluted at certain parts which is off-putting. I get the impression you've rushed the cutting of this to try to get it to an acceptable length which has affected the quality.

For instance in the lead "The script, written by Sinha and Kanika Dhillon, originated as an idea that Sinha got when he saw a television commercial, and which he subsequently expanded." That's acceptable but I'd write it as something like "Sinha and Kanika Dillion's inspiration for the screenplay derived from the concept of a television commercial."

I suggest you withdraw this as I can't see how it would pass right now, get a few able copyeditors on board and above all to involve some of the cinema writers at the Indian project to give it a going over and try to help prepare it with you for FA. Then nominate it once they're convinced it is ready. I think it needs a thorough copyedit, but I do see potential for this in becoming an FA and I think with some work and some fresh pairs of eyes looking at it it is achievable but honestly I don't think it's ready right now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I did not mean to be unduly discouraging by the way, and would be glad to help out with the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because because it has recently undergone a successful MILHIST A Class review and has had some incremental improvements through that process and since. It was the sister division of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (an article which is now FA). In the confusion and desperation that ruled the Balkans in late 1944 and 1945, this division never reached more than brigade size, but elements of it fought the Red Army in southern Hungary in late 1944. It was disbanded when its Bosnian Muslim members mutinied, realising that their German sponsors would leave them to the tender mercies of the Yugoslav Partisans and Russians. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and I also did the GAN review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Flag_of_Albania_1946.svg: source link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• it isn't used in this article? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's in the navbox at the bottom. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Crap. Do I have to check the templates that are added as well? I'll get on to it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I wish ppl would just stay at their url... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• It's not a deal breaker, but generally statements made in the lede don't need to be cited unless they're not backed up in the main body.
• This reads as if Himmler was going to put two corps of two divisions in Bosnia and another two corps in Albania: His plan was to form two corps of two divisions each in both the Bosnian region of the Independent State of Croatia and in Albania.
• No duplicate links.
• No DABs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Sturm, have removed the citations from the lead and checked that all points were included in the main body and cited. Also clarified the plan only involved two corps. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Cautious Support

• "Formed on 19 June 1944, the division did not reach full divisional strength and never saw action as a formation, but elements of the division fought briefly in southern Hungary in early October 1944.[4][5] The division was formally dissolved on 31 October 1944" It seems there are too many successive use of the word "division" in this segment. Can this be tweaked?

• Done.

• "...expulsions and forced religious conversions against the Serb population living within the borders of the new state." Serb is an ethnicity; so is it a specific religious sub-group of Serbs that were forced to religious conversion? Conversion from what to what religion? (I have no background knowledge).

• Clarified. It is complex, but I think the wordings makes the essential aspects clearer now.

• "Despite Pavelić's assurances of equality with the Croats, many Muslims quickly became dissatisfied with Croatian rule". Again, Croat is an ethnicity, while Muslim is a religion. So, no Croats were Muslim? And does, in this context, Muslims necessarily mean non-Croat Muslims?

• Again, complex, but I have tweaked the wording to improve clarity.

• "... fierce fighting had broken out between the Ustaše, Chetniks and Partisans in NDH territory". Partisans has a capital P. Is it name of a party?

• Partisans is overwhelmingly initially capitalised in scholarly sources on the subject.

• "... the autonomists were desperate to protect the Muslim". Who were the autonomists?

• clarified.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All of the above addressed, I believe. Let me know if you think anything else needs further tweaking. Thanks for reviewing! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, all of the issues are addressed. Regarding Partisan, I do not have any problem, but did not strike out that in case some other reviewers notice that and provide some opinion. I feel I don't have the qualification to judge this article against featured article criteria. still I'd try! To a novice of the topic like me, the article looks comprehensive, well-written, well-researched, neutral, and stable; lead is good, structure is ok. I did not do any spot check of the sources (most are probably not available online). Media and length are fine.

So, cautious support from me (cautious because of my own shortcomings: lack of any knowledge of the topic, and lack of use of professional level of English). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose (temporarily)

Introduction

• Typos, you mix the use of Waffen-SS and Waffen SS throughout the article.
• The introcution is way too short for spending a whole sentence on that the number was given to another division afterwards.

Background

• You write the NDH authorities were led by the Ustaše militias but weren't the Ustaše militas an instrument led by the Ustaše authorities of the NDH?
• Pavelics assurances of equalities should be mentioned before the Ustaše milita campaigns. Otherwise you dont have to mention that non-catholic inhabitants of the NDH were dissatisfied with it as it is clear.
• The Chetniks were at least during the time of their resistance against the occupation some kind of Partisans so you should specify the kind of the other Patisans. (i.e. mainly communist counterpart of the Chetniks)
• Were there any connections between the letter of the bosnian muslims to Hitler and the raising of the Handschar-Division? I cant see any in the article. If there were any they have to be mentioned, if not it has to be mentioned why the division was raised instead.

History

• SS Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS wasnt equivalent to a Brigadier. It was the same as a Wehrmacht Major General and nowadays NATO Brigadier General.
• SS Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen SS same procedure, Lieutenant General of the Wehrmacht and nowadays NATO Major General. If you write Major General inside the braces you have to explain that this is compared to todays NATO ranks.
• You write about muslim conscripts born in 1926 and 1927. Was there a conscription for german service in the NDH? And dont forget, the Waffen-SS was volunteer-based and didnt started before 1943 to press german soldiers into their lines but I never read anywhere that this also happened with foreign soldiers.
• SS-Obergruppenführer is, different from the other two, mentioned with its Wehrmacht-equivalent (Genral) instead of its NATO-rank of Lieutenant General. However you handle this, you need continuity.
• Why is Đuro Grujić not linked? This points to, that there is not a single redlink within an article and is highly unlikely that this has articles for all important persons etc. Were redlinks avoided? If so, this is my main reason for my opposition.
• When did Sauberzweig propose his plan to disarm the Bosnians?
• Is the IX SS Mountain Corps the same as the IX Waffen Mountain Corps of the SS (Croatian)? Same with all other times you mention a 13th SS Division etc. As the SS and the Waffen-SS were not exactly the same you have to be exact with the names.
• Did the IX SS Mountain Corps leave its headquarters in Hungary on the same day it arrived in Andrijaševci?
• Was the 31st SS Volunteer Grenadier Division the Division that was to be formed with the cadre of the Kama-Division? Were the muslim units really part of this division or did they only operated under Lombards command?
• Why were the Bosnians withdrawn from Hungary?
• Was the mutiny the official reason to dissolve the Kama-Division?
• Its inaccurate to say the 6th SS Mountain Division Nord-Regiment under Raithel fought the United States Army in the last months of the war because of the allied warfare. If they fired a single shot at a plane from Australia or the United Kingdom its not only inaccurate but wrong. You better say where they fought.

See also

• You have linked a variety of Waffen-SS ranks within the article, why do you extra-link Table of ranks and insignia of the Waffen-SS in this section? I cant see the special relation between this and the theme of the article.

All in all there are (for my opinion) way to many inaccuacies and missing things to support the candidacy of an article about such a sensitive topic for Featured status. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid, Bomzibar, you are quite inaccurate in quite a few of the comments you have made, and some of your pronouncements are not as black and white as you seem to believe they are. I will deal with them point by point shortly. Your English is also not the best and some of what you are saying doesn't make any sense to me and I am going to have to ask you for clarification on those points. I also assume your less than excellent grasp of English is causing you to misunderstand or fail to comprehend some passages in the article. Your redlink issue is completely wrong-headed, and I have no idea where you get the idea I have avoided redlinks or why anyone would do so. I am also very concerned from your comments and apparent assumptions on both this article and the Helmuth Raithel article that you appear to have some personal issue with Waffen-SS articles being a particularly "sensitive" topic. Insofar as any article about German forces in WWII is sensitive, this article (and the Raithel one for that matter) requires a neutral point of view and reliable published sources. I will respond in detail shortly, however, I believe your opposition to the article is based on incorrect assumptions and misunderstanding, and that what remains after I have addressed your comments will not stand up to scrutiny as a basis on which to oppose the candidature of this article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As Im not a native speaker its more than possible that I make mistakes from time to time. If anything is unclear ask and I will do my best to clarify what I meant. Its not that I have any personal issue with the Waffen-SS but I only read this article as critical as if it would be a candidate for the de:Wiki equivalent of a featured article. As for the reliable published sources, Schiffer Publishing is not a publisher which puts high academical standards at their authors and their referencing. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as Schiffer is concerned, they are patchy. As far as the Lepre book is concerned, this was discussed at some length during the FAC of the 13th SS Division article, so I will paraphrase what I said to a similar question then:

"They are obviously not a university press, and publish a wide range of books on a broad spread of topics, some scholarly, some not. Many of the military history books they publish are on obscure topics. The book itself has all the hallmarks of a scholarly text (heavily footnoted, good use of quality primary and secondary sources, detailed bibliography with all the texts you would expect, seven appendices with detailed lists from the divisional order of battle, award recipients, rank conversion chart, glossary, even an index of names of unit members mentioned in the text). It mentions it received the Rutgers University Sydney Zebel History Prize, but I think that is an undergrad rather than post-grad award... The book is cited by various historians working in the field, including in several articles in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies by historians like Mario Jareb of the Croatian Institute of History. Jareb also cited it in "The Independent State of Croatia, 1941-45" (2007) edited by Sabrina Ramet a copy of which I have. I really don't see any serious questions about its reliability unless you can point to actual concerns about lack of accuracy in this book in particular." Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I have quite a few Schiffer books, some are very good and others less so. They're just like any other publisher trying to make money. In fact they're much like Motorbuch Verlag in that they focus on a few topics including the military. So you cannot impeach every book of theirs; you'll need to provide reasons why specific books should not be considered reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright seems like the book used is not of the kind I read with the author writing about the japanese military without being able to read or understand japanese and using, if, only internet sources like General.dk or even en:Wiki. I changed my oppose to temporarily to show that it is not fixed. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Deadalive

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This episode died on the nomination table last time around, with only one comment. I'm renominating because I feel it is (and already was) ready. This is the fifteenth episode of eight season of The X-Files, and a big episode for the series; it features the real return of David Duchovny as Fox Mulder. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for the next big step. It is currently a GA as well as an A-Class article. I implemented much of what I learned from my previous FAN attempt. It has been copyedited, as well as peer-reviewed by three different editors, including Noleander, The Rambling Man, and Ruby 2010/2013. The article reads well, features illustrations (and the non-free images have proper licenses), and the references are properly formatted and of high quality. I feel that the article's prose, coupled with its scope, MoS compliance, images, etc. would make it a perfect candidate for a Featured Article.Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed so I'd like to provide support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: It's... okay, but it could be improved. The Plot section is too condensed: it doesn't have an enjoyable flow and seems starchy. But the article improves from that point forward.

• "...rogue FBI agent Alex Krycek (Nicholas Lea) activates nanobots ... causing the veins in Skinner's neck to bulge, making him stumble in pain...": what does this statement have to do with anything? It is not properly explained. (Was it just out of spite? Perhaps Krycek made use of the attack in order to debilitate Skinner prior to the encounter, so Krycek could then make good his escape? Do the nanobots have some other purpose besides inflicting pain?)

  Krycek uses them as blackmail. By inflicting pain, he makes Skinner do what he wants. It's kind of hard to explain. Does it make sense now?

  It's an improvement. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Further, if Krycek inflicted this pain, why does he then proceed to greet Skinner in the next sentence?
• "...give birth to her baby for an unknown reason": for reasons he doesn't disclose? Or is he just nuts and doesn't know why he wants the pregnancy terminated?
• "...the series hired Patrick...": this came across as odd because "the series" should be an inanimate object. Perhaps the show's executives hired Patrick?
• There is some inconsistencies with the author names in the references section. Some are listed "first last" while others are "last, first".
• "... Skinner attempting to remove Mulder's life support." Why? This appears to have nothing to do with Scully giving birth to her child.

  He's trying to nullify the conflict that either entails saving Mulder and killing Scully's baby, or letting Scully's baby live and watching Mulder die. By euthanizing Mulder, he's trying to tell Krycek where to stick it. But I don't exactly know how to say that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• I re-read the lead and noticed a discrepancy. It says, "the body of alien abductee Billy Miles's (Zachary Ansley) is exhumed", which indicates the corpse was removed from its grave. However, the Plot section says, "a fishing trawler finds the decomposing body of Billy Miles". Please could you fix this and also clarify (in the lead) why this resulted in the exhumation of Mulder's body? Thanks. Praemonitus(talk) 01:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  How's it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  It's better. Thank you for addressing my concerns. Praemonitus (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think if you work on the plot section and fine tune the lead a little more, it'll satisfy 1a. Praemonitus (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have addressed the four main points you brought up (I believe), as well as given the plot section a bit of a copyedit. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I added a concern and left one that appears unresolved. Praemonitus (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Consider linking maternity leave? (as you already link life support, which seems similar). Other than that, after another read-through I think the article is worthy of FA status, and am happy to support. Ruby 2010/2013 05:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

  Good catch! I fixed that now. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Rudd Concession

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

This article covers the Rudd Concession, one of the most important events in the history of the country today called Zimbabwe. It was a grant of mining rights by the Matabele king Lobengula that, through a series of political machinations and deceptions, became the basis for the foundation of the British South Africa Company and, ultimately, for the creation of that corner of Africa called Rhodesia.

I wrote this article from scratch over the past couple months and today (16 April) it appeared on DYK and gained GA status, the latter following a very helpful review from Khazar2 (talk · contribs), who amongst other things reviewed the prose, length and image licensing. After passing the article for GA he recommended I bring it here. I feel the article is at least close to FA status, and so have nominated it for consideration.

Note that the article is written in South African English, which is basically British English with a few extra words thrown in. Thanks, and I look forward to all your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I have two long reviews promised and outstanding, so it may be a while before I can look at this article in detail. I would very much like to review it, as the subject is fascinating and, on the face of it, has been well researched. Two minor points:

• The phrasing "Starting a couple months after its enactment..." in the lead bothered me. I don't know enough about South African English to know how acceptable this wording is in formal, as distinct from colloquial expression, but "a couple months" isn't strictly grammatical, and certainly isn't pretty in any context. It's also inappropriately vague for an encyclopedia, and I recommend that you rephrase this.
• In a well-illustrated article, at least two images seem marginal: the 1835 depiction of warriors in a section describing 1880s negotiations, and the anachronistic picture of Victoria in her coronation robes (1838). I am not sure these add anything to the article.

I hope to return in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the initial comments Brian. I have altered the phrasing you pointed out to "starting in early 1889"—the vagueness is due to the fact that Lobengula didn't immediately reverse his stance on the concession, but gradually turned against it between January, when he started his enquiry, and April, when he wrote to Whitehall unequivocally disavowing it. Hopefully this is okay. Regarding the pictures I thought the 1835 warriors were okay as Matabele society did not change much over those 50 years, but I have removed it as I don't think it really adds too much in any case. I've replaced the picture of Victoria to an 1887 picture, more in context with the article. Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you again. Have a great rest of the week. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to support: This is an excellent article, very thorough and comprehensive and generally well written. I made a few small edits during my readthrough, mainly punctuation fixes and minor rephrasing. I have a few suggestions for further consideration:

• "high commissioner for southern Africa" in the text, "High Commissioner for Southern Africa" in the image caption. In British English the capitalised form is most usual; In SA-English I don't know, but there should be consistency. I notice similar discrepancies with "colonial secretary" and "prime minister".

• Have gone with capitalised, think you're right —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the section "Prelude: the Moffat treaty": clarify that "He presented the treaty as one that would renew..." refers to the proposed Anglo-Matabele treaty; the last treaty mentioned is the Grobler treaty.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the "Negotiations" section: "He said that his backers were not seeking land, like the Transvaalers" - needs clarification, e.g. "He said that his backers, unlike the Transvaalers, were not seeking land..."

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would avoid over-emphatic adverbs, as in "an extremely generous price". Thus: "Rudd was offering generous terms that few competitors could hope to approach".

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "when Maund rose the subject" → "when Maund raised the subject"

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "it would not do diplomatically" → "it would not be diplomatic"

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "to interminably tolerate" is awkward prose. Just "to tolerate" would serve equally

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• You mention that the queen's reply to Lobengula satisfied the emissaries, but you don't indicate the nature of this reply.

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "interminably seeking out supporters" - that word again!

• OK —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Lobengula fled Bulawayo as the whites approached, torching it as he went". I imagine he torched it when he arrived there, not "as he went".

• OK, have changed to just "torching the town". —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

When these are addressed, and subject to no problems arising from the sources review, I shall be happy to upgrade to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for the very helpful and thorough review. I'm very glad you enjoyed the article and found it interesting. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Have upgraded (I meant to do his days ago but it got overlooked - sorry!) Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! Have a great weekend —Cliftonian (talk) 06:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• Can we translate the source info from File:Matabeleland.gif?

• I don't know German, but I have had a go at translating it with the aid of Google translate, and it seems to roughly translate as:

"Source: World Atlas Andrées, Supplement 2 to Ed in 1887, Velhagen & Klasing

Scanning and editing: User: Ulamm Jan. 2007

Internet presentation with kind permission of the publisher Cornelsen, successors of Velhagen & Klasing".

• This seems equivocal. I've replaced the map image with the 1835 warriors picture (see above), which I feel is probably an improvement anyway, as the map doesn't really add much; I will leave investigating the 1887 German Matabeleland map to somebody better acquainted with this kind of thing. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've created a new, more helpful map and added that instead. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Queen_Victoria_1887.jpg: first source link is dead, and US uses life+100 for copyright - is there another US PD tag that would apply? Same with the Leslie Ward images. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've put PD-100 on Victoria and PD-1923 on the Ward images, I hope this is what is needed as I am not much of an expert regarding copyright tags. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Top stuff and all the more impressive that you wrote this from scratch. Just one minor query -- under Agreement, there's a quote which states "...the said monthly payment of one hundred pounds..."; I take it the bit in bold is a spelling mistake? Lemonade51 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well spotted! Thanks for the support and the kind words, keep well and have a great Sunday! :) —Cliftonian (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Political career of John C. Breckinridge

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I started this article from scratch after realizing the John C. Breckinridge article wouldn't comfortably accommodate all there was to say about the man. I hope to eventually form a featured topic with John C. Breckinridge, Political career of John C. Breckinridge, John C. Breckinridge's military service in the American Civil War (under construction), and the as-yet non-existent John C. Breckinridge's escape and exile from the United States. The article has had a peer review, a a thorough review by Wehwalt, and just passed a GA review. I think it is ready for the next step to FA. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments - mainly on the lead:

• I'm not sure about your comment in the nom statement on accommodating "all there was to say about the man". This seems a somewhat excessive aim, more appropriate to a full-length biography than an encyclopedia article.
  • Badly stated on my part, I guess. I think when you read the article, you'll understand what I mean. This doesn't cover his extensive military career, his long exile from the U.S., or his early life, and yet it is still a longish article unto itself. No way to accurately summarize his life in one, appropriately long article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The most headline-grabbing features of Breckinridge's career – his election as US vice president at the age of 35, and his presidential campaign in 1860 – should be in the first lead paragraph. That way, readers who know little or nothing about him are more likely to be hooked. At present the initial paragraph is perhaps too dull to excite interest.
  • I usually prefer chronological order over interest because I feel like it makes the lead less repetitive. Nevertheless, I've attempted a rewrite to accommodate this feedback. What do you think? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The second lead paragraph begins "Considering his re-election unlikely in 1854..." without saying what he was seeking reelection to.
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The wording "Despite capturing the electoral votes of most of the Southern states, Breckinridge lost the election to Lincoln..." is misleading. It implies that the election was close; Breckinridge's was a regional candidacy with virtually no support outside the Deep South. There was never a prospect that he would win.
  • Well, I think the sources indicate he got more support outside the south than did any of the other regional candidates, but the point about it not being a close race is well-taken. Davis extensively speculates on ways certain states could have broken a different way if candidates had dropped out, united, etc. and concludes that – outside of the wildly extreme – there were really no scenarios that didn't end with a win for Lincoln. Reworded to dispel the notion of a close race. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Though he sympathized with the Southern cause, in the Senate, Breckinridge futilely worked to peacefully reunite the states." The comma after "Senate" needs removal to preserve your meaning. And a double split infinitive ("Breckinridge futilely worked to peacefully reunite") makes exceptionally ugly and awkward prose.
  • I think I fixed all of these. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This is just a start; I've only managed to look at the lead so far. I will try to read more later and hopefully, provide more commentary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I always appreciate your insightful feedback. Looking forward to the rest of your review. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment I still think the biographical sections should come first; his political views are less interesting to the reader and you may lose people before you ever get to the "good stuff".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I really kind of wrestled with this at the beginning, and again when you brought it up in your review, but it seems like understanding his philosophy is foundational to understanding his actions throughout his career. Otherwise, the motivations for those actions may be misinterpreted. Still, I understand your point and would like for other reviewers to give their opinions as well. I'm not totally averse to making the change if consensus dictates. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

More comments: I am giving this more detailed attention than I usually do at FAC, because Peer Review, where I'd have probably picked it up, is not working well at present. Here are my comments on the next few sections:

Formative years

• "Bullock told Breckinridge that by the time they opened their practice in Burlington, Iowa, 'you were two-thirds of a Democrat'" - presumably this comment was made at some later point; this should be clarified, e.g. "Bullock later told..."
  • Date added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Problems here: "Breckinridge's brother-in-law wrote that, upon learning that he had "become loco-foco",[note 1] his uncle William said "I felt as I would have done if I head heard that my daughter had been dishonored." I assume "head" is a typo, but I still can't sort out the meaning clearly. The "he" and "his" are unclear, and the whole sentence construction needs rethinking"
  • Yes, I really struggled with how to construct this sentence, but the quote is too illustrative not to use. I've tried to make the sentence clearer. See if it is better now.

• • Yes, it's clearer now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Visiting Kentucky later that year, he met and married Mary Cyrene Burch, ending his time in Iowa." The pronoun needs defining. Also, beginning the sentence and its secondary clause with participles ("Visiting...ending") is problematic. I suggest: "While visiting...which ended..."
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Views on slavery: preamble

• I would change the "and" in the first line to "although"
  • No problem with that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• What is meant by "slavery protections"?
  • Laws and practices protecting the institution of slavery and the "property" of slaveowners. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Moderate reputation

• "some charged that Breckinridge was an abolitionist". Apart from the vagueness of "some", "charged" sounds like accusation of a crime. Perhaps "regarded Breckenridge as" or similar formulation?
  • This issue was raised in the peer review. The vagueness of "some" unfortunately can't be helped; the source gives the subject only a passing, non-specific mention. As for the "charged" language, my original wording was "believed", but the peer reviewer pointed out, quite rightly, that slavery was a political "wedge issue", and that opponents could have charged Breckinridge with being an abolitionist without actually believing that he was. That was probably the case (on both sides) in his congressional re-election bid against Robert Letcher, where both candidates charged that the other was an abolitionist, despite little evidence that either was. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Ultimately" - meaning...when? End of life?
  • Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• A date for the Kansas-Nebraska act would be helpful
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Later views

• What is the difference between the state legislature and the "Assembly"?
  • There is no difference. The Kentucky legislature is called the "General Assembly". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "After losing the election to Abraham Lincoln..." I would omit the words "to Abraham Lincoln", since he was way behind Douglas, too, on the popular vote.
  • Yes, but he was second to Lincoln in electoral votes, which are ultimately the only ones that matter. Just ask Al Gore. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Well, I'm not wholly convinced by that analogy, but I won't push the matter. Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Kentucky House of Representatives

• I recommend you make this a level-3 subsection of "Early political career", to avoid the present exceedingly brief main section
  • I was thinking I had made it so. That was my intent. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "When the House convened..." Give a date (in fact, this whole subsection is woefully short of dates)
  • Added. The whole section encompasses a period of time from October 1849 to March 1850. I don't think the months of most specific actions during that time are all that significant. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Congress's ability legislate emancipation..." Word missing
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• March 4 definitely needs a year
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

First term

• "despite Breckinridge's deference" - is there another way of putting this, since "deference" suggests "grovelling"
  • Having trouble coming up with an appropriate synonym. "Yield" is the only thing that comes to mind, but it doesn't really fit here. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I think I'd probably recast the sentence: "Boyd was elected, and despite Breckinridge's gesture, assigned him to the lightly-regarded Foreign Affairs Committee." Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
      • That'll work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "a more active role" - maybe just "an active role", unless he was notably inactive previously
  • He was, in fact, notably inactive previously. Davis talks about how newly elected legislators usually clamored for the floor to talk about pretty much anything because they wanted to show that they were "doing something" and thus worthy of re-election. Breckinridge did not speak on the House floor for the first time until March 1852, three months into his first session, and Davis mentioned that his more senior peers respected that. All this didn't seem particularly noteworthy for the article, though. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Link Fugitive Slave Law
  • It is linked on first mention (last paragraph under "Later views"). Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "he supported repairing" → "he supported the repair of..." The number of ...ings is bothersome; there are 5 in the following sentence.
  • Changed "repairing". The others are all in the same sentence and used for parallelism. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• "when the legislature adjourned its session" - which session?
  • I intended the first session of his term, but on re-reading, the session didn't adjourn; he was just absent for part of it. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

More to follow: Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

My final comments

Second term - election

• The long blue link: "buy votes or pay Breckinridge supporters not to vote" is a bit distracting, and I think unnecessary. The described activity is very obviously electoral fraud.
  • Yeah, I debated on whether to include that or not. Removed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "In the second session..." Clarify (second section of the 33rd Congress?)
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

US vice president

• What was the nature of the "contemporary political convention" that Breckinridge defied during the campaign?
  • The convention, apparently, was that the candidates stayed home and made no speeches during the campaign, letting others do their speaking for them. It was seen as a sign of "ambition", which was frowned upon, to advocate your own election. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• On the matter of the White House "hostess", perhaps you should explain to the reader that Buchanan was a bachelor, and that the hostess ran the house. That doesn't mitigate the disrespect to the VP, but it would help explain the somewhat ambiguous term "hostess".
  • I tried to do this succinctly in-line in previous iterations of the article, without success. I've added an explanatory note. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Also, maybe a word to explain the vice president's role as presiding officer in the Senate. This would help understanding of statements such as "Five tie-breaking votes provided a means of expressing his views".
  • I had hoped the quote about his intent to preside fairly would communicate that, but I've added another sentence to make it explicit. Do you think that sentence needs a cite? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "The Senate's move from the Old Senate Chamber to a more spacious one on January 4, 1859, provided another opportunity." - another opportunity for what?
  • To express his views, a reference back to the sentence about the tie-breaking votes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Presidential election of 1860

• Specify Douglas's 1858 Senate reelection bid
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "After Douglas supporters voted to replace Alabama and Louisiana's walk-out delegates..." Two things: what are "walk-out delegates", and why did one candidate's supporters have the power to do this?
  • "Walk-out delegates" were the delegates who walked out of the previous convention. Douglas's supporters had the power to do this because they were in the majority (in both conventions, actually). They just didn't have the two-thirds majority needed to nominate in the first convention. (I think the delegates to the second convention accepted a simple majority threshhold.) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Wry note: Earlier, you rejected my quibble about Breckinridge not losing the election "to Lincoln". Now you seem to be accepting my position, since your wording implies he was not even running against Lincoln! Seriously, though, the word "effectively" might usefully be inserted between "election" and "pitted".
  • Well, until the GA review, the sentence noted that this observation is credited to Lowell H. Harrison, but the GA reviewer thought it was the prevailing view of all historians and that citing a specific one was unnecessary. I think the suggestion about "effectively" is a good one. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• What is the purpose of redlinking the words "committee of thirteen members"? Doesn't suggest a potential article title.
  • I took it from List of defunct United States congressional committees, although I copied the link incorrectly, which I have fixed. I think it could justify at least a stub article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Senate

• "He also voted against a resolution to remove the names of the senators from seceded states from the Senate roll." A brief note of which states had seceded and when, would be helpful.
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Confederate Secretary of War

• "some time" is one word (unlike "sometimes", which has a different meaning)
  • A typo, I guess. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I find the term "youngest-ever Confederate cabinet member" a trifle absurd, since the Confederacy cabinet lasted barely five years. I would remove the "ever", if not delete this unimportant information.
  • It's not that absurd if you consider that there were a total of 19 people (if our wiki-categorization is correct) who served in the Confederate cabinet in those five years, five in Breckinridge's position alone. I've reworded to avoid "ever". Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "...John Archibald Campbell, who had opposed Breckinridge's nomination, believing he would focus on a select few bureaus and ignore the rest". What is meant by "bureaus" in this context?
  • Bureaus of the War Department. Clarified. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "By late February, Breckinridge concluded..." Either replace "By" by "In", or amend to "had concluded"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• The sudden reference to "President Andrew Johnson" without explanation might confuse some readers. Suggest a parenthetical "(who had assumed the presidency on Lincoln's assassination on April 15)"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• "...overtaken by forces under Lieutenant Colonel Andrew K. Campbell". Specify "Union forces..."
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally, this is an impressive article; most of the above points are routine fixes that can be easily made (or in some cases refuted). My one general criticism, a fairly mild one, is a tendency towards overdetailing. Trivial points such as Breckinridge's opposition to funds for a sculpture of George Washington in a toga, the nicknaming of his son, the draw-rigging non-event, and a few other instances, could be removed without any detriment to the article; indeed, such details make reading of the article harder than it should be. That might be just my personal preference, but you might reflect on it. I look forward to supporting the article after you have responded to my specific points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Because this was a sub-article, I indulged in details more than I usually would. I'd be interested to hear the views of other reviewers on what information, if any, they feel is too trivial to include. The only one I'd probably fight for is the son's nickname; if someone were to find a reference to Owen in one source and John Witherspoon in another, it needs to be clear that they are the same child. Would you mind to weigh in on Wehwalt's suggestion above about the order of the political philosphy relative to the political biography? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Wehwalt has a point, and if this was the main biographical article for Breckinridge I would entirely agree. In this case, given the article's specific focus, the issue is less clear. I personally found it quite helpful, when following his career, to have some knowledge of his beliefs and how they evolved, but others may feel differently and this is not, for me, a sticking point. I don't think the article's eventual promotion should hinge on this point, but if it does, I'll go along with the change if you so decide. Brianboulton (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I don't think he would have insisted upon it as a condition of promotion; I just wanted another reviewer's perspective. It sounds like you read it pretty much as I intended, as a guide to his thinking for later reference, with only as many allusions to later events as necessary to keep the reader oriented. That tells me that I wasn't way out in left field with my organization, at least. (Not that I thought Wehwalt was implying that.) Like you, I can see the benefits of doing it either way, so I'm just trying to see what most folks find most helpful. Anything else needed to secure your support? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: I have given this article a lot of review attention and I think my points have been suitably addressed. In a few cases, had I been the author I may have done things differently, but so what? The article is a product of much research, gives a comprehensive account of an interesting political career and, in my view, is fully deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Image review

• File:John-C.-Breckinridge-circa-1850.jpg: page?
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:LinnBoyd.jpg: source says Linn, description says Lynn - which is correct?
  • "Linn" is what I see most commonly, but I think both have been used, depending on which work you consult. I've changed "Lynn" to "Linn".
• File:RPLetcher.jpg: first source link is dead, and it's possible (though unlikely) that date of death was less than 100 years ago (since creator is unknown)
  • I tried to dig up some information on the Charlotte Letcher Collection to see when it was first exhibited, but no luck. I assume this refers to Robert Letcher's second wife, since her name was Charlotte and they had no children. He and his first wife also had no children. If so, she died in 1879, which would strongly suggest that the work was first "published" prior to 1923. I can neither verify this nor that the author died more than 100 years ago, but both are pretty likely, in my opinion. If neither of these are satisfactory, then I guess FfD it. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:ElectoralCollege1860.svg: source?
  • Looks like an original work to me. The author (JWB (talk · contribs)) looks like he or she is still semi-active. Perhaps we can contact him/her to clarify any specific concerns. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• File:John_C._Breckinridge_statue_Lexington_KY.jpg: who was the creator of the statue? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure. At some point, I hope to do a bit more research on it, and I'll add that info if I find it. In the meantime, I know it was first published before 1923, so it's definitely PD. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't mean to intrude, but I did a little copy editing as I saw fit. Just a quick scan: all in all looks good to me but I wonder if the article is not a little over-reliant on just two major sources (the Davis and the Heck), once you strip out articles and encyclopaedia entries. I know from editing the KFC page that sometimes major sources just aren't available, but is this definitely the case here? Plurality of reference is superior to duality. Farrtj (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, I suspect there are many works that reference Breckinridge in some capacity, but considering that Davis' biography is over 600 pages, I doubt that many of them cover significant new territory. Davis' biography also won the 1973 Jules F. Landry Award for Southern History and garnered Davis the first of two nominations for the Pulitzer Prize, so I suspect it's pretty complete. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As to the "charged" formulation, I've got an idea. Although Davis as the standard source uses it, it should be allowable, I think, for Wikipedia editors to de-charge emotional content in words used in the source, although great care must be exercised not to introduce unwarranted re-interpretations. So "believed" or "regarded" are out of the question, as I've previously pointed out, since those words introduce distinctly new meanings that are unfounded in any source. But, what about a formulation as "sought to represent him as an abolitionist"? If the word "charged" has a too strong connotation in present day English as "accused of a crime", then such a substitution might be in order. But, as I see it, to be the judge of that (i.e, the subtleties in the meaning of "charged"), you'd have to be a native speaker, I think, so I'll leave it to other editors to reach a verdict.Arildnordby (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"sought to represent him as an abolitionist" seems a little wordy, but "represented him as" or "claimed he was" or something to that effect might work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said, I'll leave this issue (if it really is an issue) for native speakers. A formulation like "alleged he was.." includes, perhaps, the rather shaky foundation upon which the allegation rested?Arildnordby (talk) 10:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Alleged" works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I cannot be one of the three reviewers to OK this article to FA status. First off, I'm too new here, and need to build up sufficient experience. Secondly, I think that to FA this particular article, a reviewer ought to have quite a bit of US history knowledge, which I have not. So, I'll just leave incidental notes on points that strike me as unclear, rather than taking on the role as reviewer.Arildnordby (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Totally understandable. In the limited circumstances under which I review FACs, I like to have at least a basic working knowledge of the subject. Your comments are welcome here, regardless of whether you register a !vote. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Support Even after the peer review, I had my concerns about this article but a lot of the rough spots seem to be smoothed out. Have not examined images. A few remaining things:

Early influences:

• Perhaps it would be wide to summarize his college career in a sentence, since you mention both Centre and Transylvania.

• Good suggestion. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• U.S. House of Representatives
• "using the money to buy votes or pay Breckinridge supporters not to vote." It might be worth mentioning whether the secret ballot was then in use.

• I'm not entirely sure about this. I believe it was viva voce, but I can't cite that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Breckinridge – a delegate to the national convention and a presidential elector " Still not happy about this. Suggest "designated as a presidential elector" as Breckinridge doesn't get to be one if the Whigs take Kentucky.

• I can live with that. It's a somewhat complicated issue to sum up concisely. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Douglas wrote to Robert Toombs that he would support his enemy Alexander H. Stephens" Whose enemy? Toombs's? Any ambiguity can be removed by adding after "enemy" and fellow Georgian"

• Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• " Lincoln's insistence on emancipation" I hope you are not stating this as a fact, but as what Breck was saying. Lincoln expressed more moderate views as candidate.

• Yes. This is a summation of Breckinridge's address. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Governor Magoffin refused to endorse the resolution, preventing its enforcement." Not that there was any way to enforce it, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Quite so. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Woolly mammoth

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it now covers all aspects of this species, it has been copy edited, and is a core subject under palaeontology and extinction. Lister 2007 is extensively used, because it is the best synthesis of mammoth research. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from John

I see instances of both UK and US English spellings in the article. That's an automatic fail for me, on prose. Before I go to the trouble of making further comments, should it be in UK English? --John (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, should be UK, the US versions must be remnants from the few old parts that are left from before I expanded it, I'll go through it now and fix what I find. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the things I could find[21] (mainly "ized" to "ised"), is that what you had in mind? Some of it was from other articles that I had merged in here without double checking, seems to have missed the copy editor as well. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I was mainly concerned with "analyze" which is very rare in British English; the other -ize spellings would have been fine. There are a couple of other wordings that I think are infelicitous. I will either just edit them and bring it here to review, or point-by-point it here, depending on how much time I have tomorrow. It's a really nice article and I tend towards supporting, mainly on prose and structure. --John (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I look forward to sorting anything out. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here goes.

• Lead paragraph
  • "known to Europeans in the 1600s": 1600s or 17th century? MoS allows either these days, but I prefer the latter

I prefer it too, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "wool varied through black and brown to blond or ginger." "Through" in this use is an Americanism. British English would use "from".

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • frost bite -> frostbite

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "An isolated population" -> "Isolated populations" (as we are talking about two separate populations)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Saint Paul Island (Alaska); fix link

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "It has been proposed the species could be recreated through cloning or artificial insemination, but this method is as yet infeasible due to the degraded state of the remaining genetic material." Couple of problems here; first, artificial insemination sounds pretty off-the-wall; I don't have the reference you use to support this but as the article points out, frozen sperm only stays viable for decades, and that's under lab conditions. There seems no likelihood that millennia-old frozen sperm could work. Why mention it at all in the lead? The second problem is grammatical; if we have to have it in the lead, we'd need to say "these methods" as there are two different ones. I'd also like to see the ethical problems with recreating the mammoth mentioned in the lead, but maybe that's just me.

These two methods are often mentioned in the (popular) literature, and it appears Japanese researchers would rather try insemination than actual cloning. But yeah, maybe too much for the lead. Fixed the other issues. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• • "until roughly 4,000 years ago" doesn't need "roughly"; no-one will assume we mean exactly that long ago. --John (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come. --John (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing things up so far. It looks like it will be tonight or even tomorrow night before I can finish this. Sorry. --John (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I have other stuff to do today as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. I am sorry for the delay in finishing this review. --John (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Taxonomy
  • "remains of modern elephants that had been brought to Europe during the Roman Empire, for example the war elephants of Hannibal the Great and Pyrrhus of Epirus, or animals that had simply wandered north" Roman Empire -> Roman Republic (I think), and lose the simply. It wouldn't have been that simple for an elephant to "wander" across the Mediterranean, even though they are renowned as great swimmers.
  • "While he discussed the question of whether or not the remains were from elephants, he drew no conclusions" -> "He discussed the question of whether or not the remains were from elephants, but drew no conclusions"
  • "Most significantly, he argued this species had gone extinct and no longer existed, a concept that was not widely accepted at the time.[6]" Lose "Most significantly", unless it can directly be drawn from the reference, to which I do not have access.

Fixed all of the above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Etymology
  • "Following Cuvier's identification, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach gave the woolly mammoth its scientific name in 1799, Elephas primigenius, ..." -> "gave the woolly mammoth its scientific name, Elephas primigenius, in 1799 ..." More logical flow
  • "It was not until 1828 that Joshua Brookes recognised the species was distinct enough to warrant a new genus" -> "In 1828 Joshua Brookes recognised the species was distinct enough to warrant a new genus"
  • "during the early 1600s" -> "during the early 17th century"
  • "Thomas Jefferson, who famously had a keen interest in palaeontology, is partially responsible for transforming the word mammoth from a noun describing the prehistoric elephant to an adjective describing anything of surprisingly large size." -> Lose "famously". I was not aware that he was famous for that, and nor will most readers be.

Fixed all of above. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Evolution
  • "...around the Tethys Sea area." -> "...around the Tethys Sea."
  • Lose "aforementioned" please.
  • "Columbian mammoth, M. columbi, also evolved from a population of M. trogontherii that had entered North America" Lose "also"
  • "only experienced a limited loss of genetic variation" -> "only experienced a slight loss of genetic variation" or maybe "minor". The antonym of "limited " is "unlimited", not "large" or "significant"

Fixed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

More to come. --John (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking good, thanks for the edits. I will finish this tonight or tomorrow. More likely the latter. My friend who I haven't seen for months just arrived and I don't want to be anti-social. --John (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. All above issues have been fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the interests of efficiency, I made the rest of the edits myself. Please check and let me know if you approve of this or not. I would like to take one further look later today and then I will support. --John (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I followed while you edited, so I've checked them already, looks good, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Further round of copy-edits here. Two other users made edits as well in that diff. --John (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, but why was the following info removed? "Up to 25% of the tusk was within the sockets". FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That was User:WereSpielChequers. We have "About a quarter of the length was inside the sockets." already so we don't need "Up to 25% of the tusk was within the sockets ..." as well. It was a good catch I thought. --John (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see... Good catch indeed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Sourcing and completeness look good as well, though I haven't examined them in detail. --John (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another question frm me. Is "Yuka" the same as "the Yukagir mammoth"? If so we need to expain that, prefereably the first time we mention it. --John (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope, Yukagir is an adult male, Yuka is a juvenile. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Maybe worth a wee note to clarify; if I could be confused, so could others. Also, why are there quote marks around the names? What are we quoting? --John (talk) 11:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Age now specified at first mention of both. As for quotes, it's because they're merely informal nicknames. Should they be removed? FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to flag up through punctuation that these nicknames are informal ones. Scare quotes has "Quotation marks are often used to alert readers that a term is used in a nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense [...] They imply 'This is not my term' or 'This is not how the term is usually applied.' Like any such device, scare quotes lose their force and irritate readers if overused." --John (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there another way to show that they're informal in a less obnoxious way? FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am really not sure, and I am humbled because I consider myself an MoS expert. I wonder if we could reduce the number of instances, as it is the repetition and the punctuation together which are slightly triggering my distaste here. Let me think some more; I wouldn't oppose over this anyway but if there's a way of making it better we should do so. --John (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

How about italics? Or 'this'? If none of it works, I'll just remove the quote marks. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Jimfbleak

Support Comments from Jim Just nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• eastern/ East Eurasia — capitalisation seems arbitrary

Lower case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Genetic studies, frostbite, molars nuclear genome sequence, DNA , morphologies, lactic acid — link at first occurence

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• 6 tonnes (6,000 kg). — both are metric

Removed kg. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Its ears and tail — "wool" was the last subject mentioned

"The" instead of "its"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• but this is yet infeasible — missing word?

Added "method". FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• There are a few overlinks, behemoth, Alaska, both extant elephants, Pleistocene, Taimyr

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Check "itself" isn't redundant in each occurrence

Removed all but one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• a moment in time — not exactly a moment...

Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• A 2010 study confirmed these relationships, — another sentence separated from its original subject

Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Varying colours in mammals are usually a form of camouflage linked to survival — so you can't see the mammoths because of their colour...?

Removed, wasn't exactly relevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Each major line represents a year, whereas weekly — "and" rather than "whereas"

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• its weight 15 times — I think you mean 15-fold

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Prior to this, Neanderthals had coexisted with mammoths during the Middle Paleolithic and up to that time — ???

To Upper Palaeolithic. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• 35 and 11.500 years — 35,000 is more plausible

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Formatting error in last ref?

Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Responded to all issues, not sure if they are fixed satisfactorily. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I mad two minor edits. I note you have also sorted out the AE/BE confusion, so I'm happy to support now, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for edits! FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from GermanJoe

Image check - mostly all OK, sources and authors provided. Some images need checking (all points Done):

• File:MammothVsMastodon.jpg - has no evidence, that the photoshopped elements are copyright-free. Actually the original uploader on English Wiki removed one such image from another related article due to copyright concerns.

In those cases, the photo elements are so highly modified and their original context unrecognisable that I think "de minimis"[22] would apply. But I can ask over at Commons if you think not. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A minor element of a copyrighted work would still be copyrighted (dunno, if there's a lower limit), but it's better to raise this question at Commons. A completely modelled mammoth or mastodon is not "minor" imo. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask on Commons. As for the technique, its basically just photo collage, but the resulting "models" are original, only the fur texture is taken from images of animals. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thread: [23] FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK based on the current arguments, i'd give it a day and we can close that. GermanJoe (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Status changed, all images OK per Commons discussion on usage of trivial elements. GermanJoe (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Ice_age_fauna_of_northern_Spain_-_Mauricio_Antón.jpg - the first slideshow link is dead (but not absolutely necessary). Link could be removed, if you don't find a replacement.

It didn't show up for me the first time, but did the second time. Could you try again and see what happens?FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oops - it helps to disable AdBlock ... My bad.GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• File:Woolly_mammoths.jpg - needs license tags.

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• All "Charles R. Knight" images - are the noted dates date of creation or publication? Can you clarify, where those images were first published (needed for PD-1923 and PD-US)? (Done) GermanJoe (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

They're museum murals which were made public these dates, I have the dates from a book about Charles R. Knight. should I add citations for the dates? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggest to insert something like "published in YYYY, see {bibliographical info}" to the date fields of all Knight images. I'd AGF, that the dates are correct, but it's best to have this info immediately available for future questions. GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll add info to the description boxes on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Darkwarriorblake

• Comments: I found the article a very interesting read, long but comprehensive, but none of the web based sources are archived, making them all a time bomb, and many if not all of the publisher/work are unlinked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The DOIs, PMIDs and JSTORs are all links. Clicking on them leads to either articles or paywalls with abstracts. FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake It's not normal to archive real-life, as opposed to web-only sources, because they can't disappear. It's usual only to have a url link to a publication if it has free full text, otherwise it's misleading and a bit spammy to link to a paywall, especially as the doi or equivalent does that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as the sources are robust. Support Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Axl

The first two paragraphs in the lead section mention "eastern Eurasia". Is this the same as "Asia"? Or "Asia and eastern Europe"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the same as the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, as in Europe and Asia together. Is it too vague? FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The word "Eurasia" is less familiar than "Europe" and "Asia". I am hoping to simplify the phrase. If "Asia" could be used instead of "eastern Eurasia", that would be ideal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Replaced where it made sense to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 2: "African elephants diverged from an earlier common ancestor 6.6–8.8 Mya." This appears to be the first instance of the word "Mya", yet the phrase "million years ago" was used four times earlier in the subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy", subsection "Evolution", paragraph 3: " At the same time, the crowns of the teeth became longer and the skulls become taller from top to bottom and shorter from back to front over time to accommodate this." Why should a skull that is shorter from back to front be better at accommodating longer teeth? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It was to compensate for the increased weight of the skull, I've added this. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The syntax seems a little clumsy; I shall think about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, was a bit hard to cram in. Any suggestion is appreciated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

How about two sentences: "The crowns of the teeth lengthened and the skulls became taller from top to bottom to accommodate this. At the same time, the skulls became shorter from front to back to minimise the weight." Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need "from top to bottom " and "from front to back"? I wish there was a more elegant way to express this. --John (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There are technical terms that most readers wouldn't understand. I'll think of something. FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. --John (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually "from top to bottom" isn't really needed, because that is what "taller" means. I think that we still need "from front to back" (or an equivalent phrase) because "shorter" does not normally mean that. The closest regular word that I can think of is "shallower", but that doesn't really fit, and would still need the qualifier. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work. --John (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I removed "from top to bottom". I'll look how the source phrases the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Lister 2007 does say exactly "shorter from front to back". FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't think of a better phrase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the subsection "Wool" is poorly named. I believe that "wool" refers to the fur of domesticated animals that is used to make clothing for humans. As such, the woolly mammoth does not have wool. (Indeed the name "woolly mammoth" is a misnomer.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, nice OR, but wrong. My Chambers starts "The fleece of sheep, goats, yaks etc", then goes on to describe it as a modified type of hair, and only then gets on to subsidiary meanings such as use as fabric or to describe curly human hair. On your logic, ancestral species of sheep and goats that became extinct before man didn't have wool either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that it is OR for me to say that woolly mammoths didn't have wool. I don't actually have a reference that says that. It is based on my reading of definitions of "wool". (If it was called the "hairy mammoth", no-one would claim that it has wool.) However I'm not asking for that statement to be added to the article. Rather, I am hoping that descriptions of "wool" are changed to "fur" or "hair". The issue of whether the ancestors of modern sheep had wool is beyond the remit of most dictionaries and isn't something that I would argue about. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do about this, maybe some more opinions could be nice? FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

1) What do the sources say? 2) The fact that the article is entitled "Woolly mammoth" predisposes me to thinking this is the best word to use. --John (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The source uses various words, including fur, hair, coat, and underwool refers to something present on living animals, not something produced by humans. But maybe "coat" would be better as a title, as it covers all sorts of hair, not just the woolly covering? FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. "Coat" seems best to me, and go with the sources when doing the detailed description of the structure of the coat. Very nice point, Axl. --John (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course I would be happy with "coat". Let's wait and see what Jimfbleak thinks. Hopefully we can reach a consensus (even unanimous?) decision. I still hope that all reference to "wool" will be expunged. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The change has been made. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I was hoping to see Jimfbleak's reaction first. I suppose that if he (or another editor) objects, we can reconsider the matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not really taking a stance on that issue, what convinced me was that "wool" doesn't include for example the hair on the tail, which is also discussed in the section, so coat is better, as the scope of the term is wider (includes all sorts of hair). FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

On a related issue, wouldn't "tawny" be a better word than "blond"? I have a feeling (no evidence, just a feeling) that "blond" relates mainly to humans. Any thoughts? --John (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's wording from the press covering of that paper (which I've replaced with the actual paper as source), but not in the paper itself, so I'll change it to light coloured and dark coloured. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

"Light-coloured" might be better than "blond". --John (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Description", subsection "Wool", paragraph 2, I have added wikilinks for "dominance (genetics)" and "recessive trait". However I am unhappy with the use of the term "inactive gene" in the latter part of the paragraph. I wonder if the paragraph would be better with "dominant" and "recessive" throughout, with "fully active" and "partially active" in parentheses at the first instances? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A technical point: alleles can be dominant or recessive, not genes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the wording, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a minor adjustment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 1: "the haemoglobin of the woolly mammoth was adapted to the cold, with three mutations to improve oxygen delivery around the body and prevent freezing." I was initially sceptical of the last part of the statement so I checked the reference. Can I suggest that this reference might be regarded as more reliable and authoritative than The Independent's article? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Both sources are already used for the same paragraph. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't realise that that reference was being used for the very next sentence. In which case, why is the original paper being used for one statement, while The Independent's report of that paper is used for another? I suggest that the original paper is a better source than The Independent for this purpose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Before I worked on it, only the news article was used, so when I added the actual paper to source the second sentence, I just let the old source be, as a kind of backup. I can remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be better without The Independent's article as a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "The most common of these diseases was osteoarthritis, found in 2% of specimens. One specimen from Switzerland had several fused vertebrae as a result of this condition. The "Yukagir Mammoth" had suffered from ankylosing spondylitis in two vertebrae." In humans, it is rare for spinal osteoarthritis to cause ankylosis, but I am prepared to accept the statement about the Swiss specimen. On the other hand, I am sceptical about the diagnosis of ankylosing spondylitis in the Yukagir Mammoth. How do they make a diagnosis of ank spond from woolly mammoth remains? On the basis of only two affected vertebrae? The statement about the Swiss specimen indicates that the presence of ankylosis alone is insufficient to confirm a diagnosis of ank spond. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really a pathology buff, but I'll give the sources an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, since my knowledge is lacking in that field, here is the relevant part of the 2006 paper describing the Yukagir mammoth:

"The Yukagir Mammoth had backbone/spine problems. Thoracic vertebrae IV and V showed abnormal growth possibly as a result of auto-immune reaction to an inflammation somewhere else in the body. Only the thornshaped extremities of the two subsequent thoracic vertebrae (thoracic vertebrae VI and VII, No. 7885 and No. 7886) have been retrieved; these were naturally cut off just above the neural canal and were strongly deformed, showing some pus channels. The available vertebrae before and after these pathologically-modified specimens were in good condition. Dr. Erwin Kompanje of the Erasmus Medical Center and the Natural History Museum in Rotterdam, The Netherlands, diagnosed a form of Spondylarthropathy (also known as (Ankylosing) Spondylitis or Rheumatoid spondylitis) in the 4th and 5th thoracic vertebrae (fig. 9). Unfortunately, the pelvis bone and the sacrum bone are missing. Generally, this disease shows most clearly in the joint between these two bones. Spondylarthropathy includes a group of inflammatory diseases comprising Reiter’s syndrome, reactive arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and arthritis associated with inflammatory bowel disease. The bony outgrowths found on the vertebrae of affected individuals are called syndesmophytes (Francois et al., 1995). These are slim, bony outgrowths, parallel to the vertebral column, which replace the outer parts of the annulus fibrosus (part of the intervertebral disc) and the shorter and longer perivertebral ligaments, thus leading to an intervertebral bridge by means of complex processes involving ossification. The syndesmophytes can be distinguished from the vertical and chunky osteophytes (bone spurs) in degenerative vertebral disease, and the often bizarre new bone formation associated with primary bacterial infections. These abnormal bony outgrowths on two thoracic vertebrae (IV and V) of the Yukagir Mammoth resemble the syndesmophytes usually found in Spondylarthropathy in man and other mammals (Rothschild, 1994; Kompanje, 1999; Kompanje et al., 2000) A diagnosis of Reactive spondylarthropathy, most probably associated with inflammatory bowel disease seems plausible in this case. These inflammations would have caused pain, especially in the early stages of abnormal bone growth but this was most likely not related to death. The event or condition triggering this growth might have occurred several years earlier. It will be interesting to see if Daniel Fisher finds signs of this event in the growth of the tusk, where a daily history of life is stored as variations in structural and compositional properties." FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote. The presence of "pus channels" in thoracic vertebrae VI and VII is a feature of osteomyelitis. The statement "Dr. Erwin Kompanje... diagnosed a form of Spondylarthropathy (also known as (Ankylosing) Spondylitis or Rheumatoid spondylitis) in the 4th and 5th thoracic vertebrae" seems to imply that ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid "spondylitis" are the same disease. (The capitalisation is rather random.) This is certainly not true. Ank spond and rheumatoid arthritis have different clinical features, different autoimmune & HLA associations, and are treated differently. Spinal disease is typical of ank spond, but is rare in rheumatoid disease. It is unclear if the source also implies that "spondyloarthropathy" is the same as ank spond and rheumatoid spondylitis. The source subsequently states "A diagnosis of Reactive spondylarthropathy, most probably associated with inflammatory bowel disease seems plausible in this case." This diagnosis is different again from ank spond and rheumatoid disease.

Given that the source lists at least three different diseases for the same clinical features, I don't think that this can be relied upon. We certainly can't pick one as our label. I am happy to accept that spondylitis was present. I suggest that we change the article's latter sentence to "The "Yukagir mammoth" suffered from spondylitis." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, is the change I've made now enough to fix that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Palaeobiology", paragraph 3, "Yukagir mammoth" has a lower case "m" for "mammoth". Paragraph 4 uses a capital "M". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Decapitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Woolly mammoths sustained themselves on plant food, mainly grass and sedges, which were supplanted with herbaceous plants, flowering plants, shrubs, mosses, and tree matter." Perhaps "supplemented" rather than "supplanted"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", paragraph 4: "Parasitic flies and protozoans were identified in the gut of the calf "Dima"." Do parasitic flies really live in the gut? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Lister only states "Microscopic studies also revealed parasitic flies and protozoa in Dima's gut." Perhaps their larvae? Not sure what his source is. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

After some digging around, I found this paper. I am happy to leave the current statement in the article as it is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "Isotope analysis has showed that woolly mammoths preferred hay-like grass... An isotopic study showed that woolly mammoths fed mainly on C3 plants." This is duplication of information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Merged. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 1: "The "Yukagir mammoth" had ingested plant matter that contained spores of dung fungus, showing that woolly mammoths fertilised the plants of their environment." Does the presence of dung fungus spores really show that woolly mammoths fertilised plants? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is ambiguous, I'll change it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Diet", paragraph 3: "The tusks were also used for obtaining food in other ways, since not all of their range was covered in snow." What other ways? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Elaborated, is it ok? Maybe not so elegant. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the last part of the sentence is relevant. Couldn't the tusks have been used to dig up plants and strip bark in areas that were covered in snow? Perhaps just delete the last part of the sentence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A ten-year-old would have doubled its height and increased its weight 15-fold." What does this mean? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be since birth, but it's a bit ambiguous. Here's the relevant text taken from Google Books, what do you think?[24] FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree—it looks like it probably means from birth to age 10, but it isn't entirely clear. In any case, I'm not sure how useful this information is. Are people really interested in the weight and height compared to birth? Do people know know much a ten-year-old human child's weight & height are compared to the birth values? Of their own children? Add to this the ambiguity about the statement and I think it should be removed from the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, will do. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

In "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1, there is something peculiar about the timing and duration of the sets of teeth. The second set of molars erupted at 12–18 months and lasted for an unspecified length of time. The sixth set were in use from age 30. This leaves a period of about 29 years for the second, third, fourth & fifth sets. Of this, the third set occupied 10 years, leaving 19 years for the second, fourth & fifth sets. Is this right? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what the source says. I've tweaked the part, but the meaning is the same... The timing for modern elephants is a bit off in relation.[25] Perhaps I should check if other sources agree? FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This slightly less serious book gives a somewhat different estimate: [26] However, it uses an older reference, so I'm not sure if it's more accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have verified that the current text is accurate, so I guess that's okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 1: "A woolly mammoth could probably reach the age of 60, like living elephants of the same size." Perhaps "modern elephants" rather than "living elephants"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Palaeobiology", subsection "Growth and reproduction", paragraph 2: "This feature indicates that male woolly mammoths also entered "musth", during which bull elephants become very aggressive and violent." "Aggressive and violent" seem to be redundant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2 mentions the "Bering land bridge" and "Beringia". I added a wikilink. It would be better to use a single consistent term. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've put Beringia in parenthesis the first time, so readers will know the term, ok? FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The term in parentheses should be the one that isn't used in the rest of the text. Neither Beringia nor Bering land bridge are used in the rest of the article, so there isn't really any need to include the alternative name. I recommend using the term "Bering land bridge" in both places, with the first instance wikilinked to "Beringia". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Distribution and habitat", paragraph 2: "A 2008 genetic study showed that some of the woolly mammoths that entered North America through Beringia from Eurasia migrated back and replaced the former population shortly before the entire species went extinct." This statement is confusing. Which direction was the migration? Which population was replaced? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed,is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Prior to this, Neanderthals had coexisted with mammoths during the Middle Palaeolithic and up to the Upper Palaeolithic." Does "up to the Upper Palaeolithic" include the Upper Palaeolithic? If so, just say "and the Upper Palaeolithic". If not, delete "and up to the Upper Palaeolithic". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "Evidence for such coexistence was not acknowledged until the 19th century." Perhaps "recognised" rather than "acknowledged"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 1: "William Buckland published his discovery of the Red Lady of Paviland skeleton in 1823, which was found in a cave alongside woolly mammoth bones, but he denied that these were contemporaries." Perhaps "he mistakenly denied"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", paragraph 2: "Today, more than five hundred depictions of woolly mammoths are known, in media ranging from carvings and cave paintings located in 46 caves in Russia, France and Spain to sculptures and engravings made from different materials." Are "carvings" different from "engravings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed the sentence, is it clearer? Here, carvings are on 3D objects, engravings are on walls. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The meaning is now clear. However you changed the positions of "carvings" and "engravings", which affects the meaning of the next sentence. Previously, engravings were part of portable art. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a result of me trying to condense the text, engravings are in fact mentioned for both types, so I'll add it both places. Also elaborated a bit, is it ok? FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm back to the original question—what is the difference between "carvings" and "engravings"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The source says "three dimensional carvings", should I add that? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As that is what the source says, I suppose that would be best. Although I wonder if the original word, "sculptures", might be okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, sculpture would imply that it had been sculpted, when it has been carved from objects... Does the word sculpture include more than that? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, "sculpture" includes carvings, but if you prefer to say "three-dimensional carvings", that would be okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh, then I'll say sculpture instead, as I wrote initially. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 2: "Woolly mammoth ivory was used to create art objects and jewels." I'm not comfortable with this use of the word "jewels". I suppose that in the broadest meaning of the word, these objects could be considered jewels. However it doesn't seem to add any extra information. Perhaps delete "and jewels"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Relationship with humans", subsection "Exploitation", paragraph 3 contains several statements of the type "having been ___ed" (some sort of past perfect form?). I wonder if a copy-editor could read through the paragraph and improve the flow? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll see if I can change it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Although woolly mammoths survived an even greater loss of habitat at the end of the Saale glaciation 125,000 years ago, it is likely that, at the end of the last Ice Age, humans hunted the remaining populations to extinction." I'm not sure why the word "Although" is used here. Also, what is the relationship between the Saale glaciation and the last Ice Age? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed although, and added a link to Quaternary glaciation (the last Ice Age). The Saale glaciation was a period within the last ice age. Should this be specified? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you could mention the time of the end of the last ice age, that would be helpful. Also, after reading Wikipedia's article on "Ice age", I don't think that "Ice Age" should be capitalized. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed ice age. Is what I've added about the last ice age what you had in mind? FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's still not clear when the end of the last ice age was in relation to the Saale glaciation. If you could add the time of the end of the last age (how many thousands of years ago), that would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The last ice age (Quaternary glaciation) is still in effect. The Saale glaciation is one of many within it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What does this statement mean: "it is likely that humans hunted the remaining populations to extinction, at the end of the last ice age."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be the Last glacial period, I'll replace. Many sources seem to mix up all these terms for ice age periods. It is quite complicated. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Should "Last" have a capital "L"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Extinction", paragraph 2: "Studies of a 11,300–11,000 year old trackway in southwestern Canada...." Should this be "an 11,300–11,000 year old trackway"? (I'm not sure.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good question. The source doesn't use that exact phrase, so can't double check. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In "Frozen specimens", can I suggest that positions of the pictures of the "Adams mammoth" are swapped? The picture drawn prior to excavation seems to be more rudimentary. Also, the statement that the skeleton's tusks are "reversed" confused me at first—I was expecting "reversed" tusks to be pointing downwards. It wasn't until I read the text that I realised that the left–right position is reversed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 1: "Most specimens have partially decayed prior to discovery, due to exposure or to being scavenged by predators." I don't think that is the correct use of the word "decayed", nor the phrase "scavenged by predators". Perhaps change the word "decayed" to "degraded"? Perhaps delete "by predators"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "Its head was exposed, and the flesh had been devoured by predators." Should this be "scavengers" rather than "predators"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 3: "One of its shoulder blades was broken, indicating that it had fallen into a crevasse." There are causes of a broken shoulder blade other than falling into a crevasse. How about "One of its shoulder blades was broken due to falling into a crevasse."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

According to a different source, there is uncertainty on whether the break was caused by the fall, or if it happened after it had died. Therefore the cautious language. I have reworded it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 6: "In 1997, a Dolgan family named Jarkov discovered a piece of mammoth tusk protruding from the tundra of the Taymyr Peninsula in Siberia, Russia." I don't think that the family name Jarkov is relevant. I'm not convinced that the Dolgan people are relevant either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 7: "By cutting a section through the second premolar and analysing its growth lines, they found that the animal had died at the age of one month." I wasn't aware that mammoths had premolar teeth. The "Dentition" subsection makes no mention of these. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "They called it "Yuka"." This sentence is rather short. Perhaps integrate the information into the first sentence of the paragraph? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "Palaeontologists think it is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Unless there is a controversy where non-palaeontologists dispute the statement, there is no need to state that "palaeontologists think" this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed all of the above. The "frozen specimens" section is the weakest section in my opinion, it is the only one (apart from "cryptozoology") I didn't write from scratch, but where I retained a lot of existing material. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is the first frozen mammoth that shows evidence of human predation." The source states "There are some odd things. What we need to do is find out if this was human interference near the time of death or was it something that happened much later?" This statement does not imply human predation, and even scavenging by humans is questionable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, at the time I thought "predation" encompassed a bit more than it does, changed. Also, it was already mentioned under exploitation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

From "Frozen specimens", paragraph 8: "It is thought to be the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered." Why not "It is the second-best-preserved mammoth ever discovered."? Also, the best preserved specimen doesn't seem to have been explicitly stated. Which one is the best preserved? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed it, was a bit subjective. There are juveniles that are better preserved thanany adults, and the only adult with a near complete head has an incomplete body, etc. FunkMon