Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Of Human Feelings[edit]

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

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

Comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Per MOS:QUOTE, linking should be avoided inside quotes. Either drop the links or paraphrase the quotes to keep them.
The guideline says "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes", so does it suggest it's not always possible? I'd think cases where a unique phrase or term which cant be paraphrased is the exception, like "collective consciousness" or "key (music)|key", unless I should drop the quotation marks altogether since these are unique enough phrases? Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • and sought to recruit electric instrumentalists for his music, based on a creative theory he developed called harmolodics: Does harmolodics require electric instruments? The wording seems to imply so
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • all the musicians are able to play individual melodies in any key, and all the while sound coherent as a group: is this the theory, or an aspect of the theory?
It's the theory --> "According to his theory..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • He taught his young sidemen a new improvisational and ensemble approach: is this harmolodics, or has the subject changed?\
Harmolodics; I changed it to "...this new improvisation..." Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The failed session was a project under Phrase Text, Coleman's music publishing company. Nonetheless, Coleman still wanted to set up his own record company with the same name: I don't understand---the rejection of the recording led to the failure of Coleman's recording company, but he wanted to revive it?
I don't see how that's suggested here, that the rejection of the recording led to its failure. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what's being said here. He "still wanted to set up his own record company", but the failed session had been a project of a record compnay he already had? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I replaced "Nonetheless" with "In addition to this company, he also wanted to...". Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The session was originally titled Fashion Faces : do sessions have titles, or was this the working title of the album?
I've read sources that say both--Palmer's 1982 NY Times review says the working title--while the source cited here says the session. I deferred to the latter because it's a bio on Coleman by a jazz writer. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Unlike most albums at the time, it was recorded with a Sony PCM-1600 two-track digital recorder.: I'm assuming this is trying to say either (or both) (a) that the album was a two-track recording rather than whatever ridiculous number of tracks they were up to by 1979 (b) it was digital. The way it's worded, the emphasis is on the Sony as opposed to other brands.
The source suggests neither--just that it was a PCM-1600, which it called "then-rare". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the source---I was talking about the wording, which tells us that, unlike most of the industry, Coleman et al used a Sony. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I rephrased it to say this recording item was rare at the time. Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • a type of music that originated in 1970: has the advent of jazz-funk been pinpoited so precisely?
Source says "about 1970". I rephrased it as "originated around 1970". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • to make each pair of guitarist and drummer: it should probably be made more explicit before this point that there were two simultaneous drummers.
It is in the lead, "background", and in "recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
In passing, yes, it's mentioned there were two people who were drummers. It doesn't say they played simultaneously, which I think will surprise most readers. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Added "simultaneously" to where they're mentioned in "Recording", Curly Turkey. Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mandel felt that the passages were neither very soft or loud, because the album was mixed with a middle-frequency range and compressed dynamics: shouldn't this be in the "Recording" section rather than "Compostion"?
It would seem so, but it's a critic's interpretation or opinion on how it was recorded and his impression on how a musical passage in a song here sounds. I could move it there, however, if you still feel it's more appropriate in "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, whether it goes earlier or later, I don't think "Composition" is the appropriate place. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved it to "Recording". Dan56 (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Jump Street" is a blues piece with a bridge: is there something unusual about a piece of music having a bridge?
The source said it's a "blues with a bridge". I think the point of highlighting this in the source was how simple the composition was, but it functions better in the sentence here on different songs' different compositions/features. Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if we assume the reader is well familiar with the context Coleman was working in, which is not a good assumption to make at Wikipedia, which aims at a general audience. We can't assume a reader will know these things, though, and will likely read it as I did: "A blues track that features a bridge". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure a general audience would know what a bridge is. At least that's the impression I've gotten when trying to talk about music with friends that are just casually interested in it lol. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
All the more reason to explicate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The source doesn't really do that. Would it be best to just remove it altogether? Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • cancelled both deals upon Mwanga's return from Japan: any reason why?
No :/ Dan56 (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • including the electric guitar from rock: except that the electric guitar didn't originate in rock
It didn't necessarily have to; according to what's cited in Rock_music#Characteristics, it's a central element to rock music. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
English is a central element of American culture, but we don't say that English is "from the United States". Besides, electric guitar is hardly a fringe instrument in jazz. What he incorporated was guitar with a rock-like approach (distortion, etc). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think comparing that to this is apples to oranges. The source phrased this in a similar fashion anyway: "Coleman had begun to experiment with ... rock or rhythm-and-blues elements (by adding electric guitar and, for a time, a blues singer to his group)." Also, a general audience associates the electric guitar with rock music more so than with any other genre, doesn't it? Palmer, a professional critic, seems to make this association too. Dan56 (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, then Palmer's being sloppy in expressing himself, isn't he? Distortion is something that definitely came from the rock approach, but the electric guitar itself is objectively not "from rock", and was far from uncommon in jazz. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't think he is--"electric guitar" is an element from rock music. It's also an element from the blues, but I think Palmer said rock because that may have been the source for Coleman in discovering electric guitar as something he'd want to include. "From" doesn't necessarily mean it originated from it--it was reappropriated and became know as the key element to rock's sound. Also, jazz purists, particular critics of this album, complained about the electric guitar being used by fusion and avant-garde players, because it's not traditionally found in bop or straight-ahead jazz, which is what a general audience usually associates with jazz. I would compromise with your revision about a "rock-like approach" to the electric guitar but none of the other sources suggested this, that Prime Time's guitarists for instance played in a rock style. I'll remove "the" and leave it as "including electric guitar from rock...", so it doesn't suggest what you're saying as much--just "electric guitar from rock", if that helps? Dan56 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Or I could just remove "from rock" altogether? Dan56 (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that would be disappointing, as it's obviously a rock influence. You may not intend "from" to mean "originated in", but that is certainly a valid reading and therefore makes the reading ambiguous and open to such misinterpretation. What you want to say is that he was incoroorating a rock influence and thus added electric guitar, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, Would this change from "elements" to "influences" suffice? Dan56 (talk) 00:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not really: it's the "from rock" wording I'm objecting to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've removed "from rock". Dan56 (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
... again, it's not the word "rock" I have an issue with—it's an important detail that rock was the influence. It's better than it was (implying electric gutiar came from rock), but the fact that it was a rock influence that drove Coleman to add it is an important detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ellerbee, the guitarist on this album, is said by a source to have incorporated distortion actually, although I've read a little up on it and early R&B records seem to have predated distortion in rock music ([1]), so it's whatever I guess. Dan56 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • non-Western rhythms played by Moroccan and Nigerian musicians: if the musicians were Morrocans and Nigerians, that's not clear from this line

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

I rewrote it as "...Nigerian musicians he enlisted." Is that better? Dan56 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I think so. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Some more Turkey[edit]

  • made the most sense out of Coleman's harmolodic theory: meaning, out of his recordings it was the esiest to understand? Or it got the most out of the theory?
I cannot check the source, as it is behind a paywall--I originally accessed it through snippet/search through Google News Archive, which no longer has that search function. What is unclear about the way it is written as is? Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • , which he said is "like learning a new language".: I think this could safely be dropped, as it's about the critic rather than really about the album, Coleman, or jazz.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • RE: reverts:
    • felt the album's supporters in "hip rock circles" have overlooked flaws such as the dilutive digital production: yes, it says he "felt", but this could easily be read as "the dilutive digital production was something he thought was a flaw", rather than "he felt the digital production was dilutive". Is it a fact or an opinion that the digital production had a dilutive effect? It certainly wan't the intention, was it? Ditto with "one-dimensional". You can see the difference between "He felt the playing was one-dimensional" and "the playing was one-dimensional, which he thought was a flaw", right?
I assumed everything after "felt..." implies it his opinion. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Not logically, no. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
ok, revised. Dan56 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to fight over a "however", but I don't think it adds anything substantive to the prose, but does unnecessarily chop it up and slow it down.
    • "saying" is a present participle? So what sense can you make of "He was saying"? You might want to read up on "ing" forms---they're not even restricle to making participles.
Ook, read up on it. I had assumed another editor's change to something similar at another article was correct when they explained it like I just did. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the biggest thing missing from the article is perhaps a paragraph giving a capsule overview of Coleman's career and music and its reception in the jazz world. The article makes a lot of assumptions about the reader's knowledge: for instance, lines like "the man once accused of standing on the throat of jazz" jump out of nowhere. How is the reader supposed to interpret this?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Curly Turkey. I've dug up a source and added a line to "Background" introducing Coleman's background in the '60s. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

No. 77 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the most famous units in RAAF history, mainly for the way it single-handedly carried out Australia's air combat commitment to the Korean War. Its role there could easily fill an article of its own, having inspired three full-length books—the latest of which I've used as a source here as it draws heavily on the earlier works, as well as having the benefit of recent research. It's sobering to realise that in three years of combat in Korea, No. 77 Squadron lost 41 pilots killed, more than twice the number it lost in three years of combat during World War II. The Korean legacy should not, however, obscure the squadron's part in the Pacific War, for which it earned a string of battle honours, nor its contribution to the security of South East Asia in the 1960s, nor its continuing role as one of Australia's frontline fighter units. Thanks to everyone who supported at the article's recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Raaf_77sqn.jpg: when was this crest created? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks for stopping by, Nikki -- not stated explicitly but the website is copyrighted 2012, will that do the trick? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The crest design definitely precedes the website (eg [2]). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Ah sorry, Nikki, I thought you meant that particular image of the crest. Can't say for sure -- oddly enough, none of the secondary sources I have spell it out. Since the design commemorates the squadron's Korean involvement I assume it was designed after July 1953 but even after scouring the operational record books from then until 1959 all I could find was a reference to it being displayed in July 1955, nothing about exactly when it came about -- so I think the best we can say is "c. 1955"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Tks for copyedit, Dan. The only thing I preferred the old way was "first jet combat claim", as "first claimed hit on a jet in combat" seems a bit of a mouthful...
  • "Several Australian families were still living at Iwakuni pending their repatriation from what had become an operational theatre, and could watch the Mustangs depart for missions over Korea.": This feels out of place somehow; maybe it just needs more, or less, or maybe I'm not following.
    • If you think it affects the flow there, what if came after the first operation, i.e. after "The squadron flew its initial escort and patrol sorties from Iwakuni on 2 July 1950, becoming the first non-American UN unit to commence operations"?
  • "two pilots died as a result of a fire in their quarters": Did they die in the fire, or from injuries sustained in the fire, or because of the fire? (in the last case: how did they die, then?)
    • Tweaked.
  • "Mk.8": clear enough, but is "Mk. 8" wrong?
    • Well the RAAF generally uses it without a space I think.
  • "Yalo River": Yalu?
    • Woah, fixed.
  • "among observers who believed": if this means "among those who believed", I think that would be clearer. "observers" is a bit mysterious.
    • Where's your sense of adventure, Dan...? ;-) No, happy to go with your suggestion.
  • "has been cited as a factor in the United States agreeing": Could you reword that?
    • Um, "has been cited as a factor in the United States' decision"? If not, happy to take suggestions...
  • Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks as always, Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Terrific article. It's got the passive voice issue, but I fixed some of the worst of it--feel free to revert if I've overfixed, or changed the meaning.
  • Sources are all reputable, although I don't own them, don't have access to them any more so I cannot spot check pages etc.
  • Overall Support auntieruth (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for copyedit and support, Ruth. Some of the passive voice might originate from a desire to avoid close paraphrasing of sources, and some to mix up the expression, but basically happy with your changes. The only one I might change back if you don't mind is "the Meteors found a suitable offensive role" as machines "finding a role" sounds a little odd to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Is there an article on temple lions?
  • The caption of Cresswell briefing pilots in Korea stated that he was now a squadron leader, is that correct? I expect that he'd been reduced in rank with the post-war downsizing, but they sent him to Korea without a promotion back to wing commander? None of this is really relevant to this article, but it did make me curious as to who he'd pissed off among the RAAF brass hats.
    • Well he was court-martialled during WWII for using his revolver to put a bullet next to the foot of a fellow officer who'd apparently been annoying him but apart from that... ;-)
  • I know he's linked in the infobox, but Cresswell and the other commanders should probably be linked on first mention in the main body as well.
    • Heh, was hedging my bets there but I guess I'll be creating the Cresswell article soon enough while all this is fresh in my mind... I think he's the only CO without a WP article who clearly meets notability criteria.
  • it was speculated at the time, and subsequently ascertained I think that "confirmed" works better than "ascertained".
    • Fair enough.
  • Why is Heineman the only publisher that's linked? Please be consistent.
    • I tend to link all publishers that have WP articles but some editors don't seem to like that and remove them, which doesn't fuss me overly but obviously they miss some occasionally -- will tidy up.
  • Otherwise sourcing is good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks Sturm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

California Diamond Jubilee half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the more obscure U.S. Mint issues. I like that the promoters of the new coins stuck to their guns when told by experts to get a new design, and we have a beautiful coin as a result.Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Source review is good.
  • Nothing jumped out at me on first read-through. I'll wait a few days and see if there's anything on a second reading.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Support – with a few queries:

  • His report to the Spanish crown garnered little interest, and it was not until the English seaman Sir Francis Drake touched there in 1579 that the Spanish were moved to settle the area." – The sentence suggests that the area was unsettled; ie, busy, manic, etc... Should this be settle as in "lived" or "moved in to"? If so, should it not read thus: "His report to the Spanish crown garnered little interest, and it was not until the English seaman Sir Francis Drake touched there in 1579 that the Spanish were moved to settle into the area." Or similar?
  • "This was the first time commemorative coin legislation covered more than one issue. An issue of 300,000..." – "issue" and "issue" repetition.
  • "Numismatic historian Don Taxay averred that this was not done due to the lack of an alternative position to place the motto in." – "not done" sounds wrong to me. I think "omitted" would sound better.
  • Would the link to "polar bear" fall within WP:OVERLINK?

That's all I have to offer for this interesting little article. Short, but comprehensive and perfectly formed in my opinion. CassiantoTalk 19:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Jumping Flash![edit]

Nominator(s): Jaguar 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's everyone's(?) favourite childhood game, Jumping Flash!. Definitely one of the most underestimated and forgotten games of all time, upon release it showcased one of the first fully 3D environments any game offered and also ensured the PlayStation's emergence into the market. This was also a failed attempt to create Sony a mascot (like Sonic or Mario) and were it not for the overshadow of other games at the time, this would be a different story.

I almost wrote a review there. Please bear in mind that this game has no logic at all - it has missile shooting pigs, talking cheeseburgers and planets with telephone boxes on them. Not to mention a robot rabbit. All things considered, it is best played whilst high. It was also very difficult to find any proper information on the internet regarding the development and release of the game, as there appears to be a large black hole in 1995 Japanese video games. I have worked hard over the months, and am nominating this for FA as I want to ensure this game gets its well-deserved honour. Jaguar 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not going to oppose because I'm no expert on this game, but even briefly examining the article I see a number of issues. There are quite a few dead links to be archived or replaced. Moreover, the citations are sloppily compiled. In citation 15, Gamespy is misspelled GameS[u and IGN is listed as the publisher. Citations 9 and 14 are the same, as are citations 22 and 28. While it's quite normal to use scans from the Internet, linking directly to copyvio sites like ImageBam is frowned upon. Spot checks were not encouraging:
Personally, I would separate contemporary reviews from retrospective coverage. Despite the seemingly unanimous collection of superlatives that comprises much of this article's "Reception" section, a few minutes of searching reveals that not all modern critics are impressed with how well Jumping Flash! holds up (for example, 6/10 from Eurogamer, 5.5/10 from Now Gamer, and 4.5/10 from IGN--although there are positive reviews such as Joystiq's 7.5/10 or PocketGamer's 7/10, and USGamer believes the game is at least still "playable", unlike even more primitive early 3D platformers such as Bug! for the Sega Saturn). Has this article really been researched thoroughly enough to make the jump from GA to FA?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I will address your comments shortly (I think some of them have already been addressed down below, though)! Jaguar 21:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: A quick read through the article highlights issues, some of which I've detailed below:



  • "the changing game generation" - what does this mean?
  • Means the transition between the fourth and fifth generation of consoles, but reworded. Jaguar 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "despite its overshadow" doesn't read right - wouldn't overshadow normally be something that's done rather than something that's possessed?
  • I'm afraid I don't understand, I think the phrase "despite its overshadow" of the game reads fine? Jaguar 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Something like "despite being overshadowed" or even "despite its overshadowing" seem to fit more naturally to me. Google suggests that this article is the only thing on the whole internet that uses the phrase "despite its overshadow" [3]. Techtri (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, reworded again. Jaguar 17:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "did spawn a few sequels such as" - 'such as' suggests we're listing some examples from a wider series, needs rewording if these are the only two sequels.
  • Reworded. Jaguar 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Slightly better, but "including" still suggests that it's only listing part of a fuller set. Were there only two sequels, or were there more titles/spinoffs? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep two sequels and two spinoffs, reworded. Jaguar 17:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Gameplay:

  • "The enemies are often of animal-like creatures" - 'of' is redundant. Also wouldn't the examples given (kiwis and penguins) actually be animals, as opposed to animal-like creatures?
  • Reworded, I know they are both birds, but these were just examples. In the game all the animal-like enemies are either anthropomorphic or robotic, so clarified. Jaguar 19:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "After collecting them, landing on the "EXIT Pad" is all that remains in finishing the level." - dislike the use of "all that remains".
  • Reworded. Jaguar 20:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Development and Release:

  • The first paragraph appears chronologically backwards, as it firstly covers the previews of the game and then goes onto explain the intial formation of the partnership and how they were tasked with coming up with a preview. It would read better if covered in order. Also the fact it was a "technology demonstration for the then-upcoming PlayStation console" is mentioned twice in this same paragraph.
  • I have re-structured the development section, moving some parts around to that they appear more chronological. Let me know what you think? Jaguar 20:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ultra (formerly known as MuuMuu Co., Ltd.)"..."Japanese studio MuuMuu Co. Ltd (later renamed Ultra Co., Ltd)" I understand it needs covering as the characters took their name from the old company name, but it needs rewording for clarity, as at the moment it reads in a way that the company is effectively introduced several times, giving the impression of different companies. Possibly remove the mention of their previous name from the second para and reword how it appears in the third.
  • Removed instance in the second paragraph and elaborated in the third. Jaguar 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Jumping Flash! was among one of the first games of the platforming genre" - 'among one' doesn't sound right to me, I'd prefer either "was among the first games" or "was one of the first games".
  • You're right; reworded to "was among the first games". Jaguar 20:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "inspires the name of the MuuMuu creatures that features in all three games" - what three games are we referring to here? This one, and the two mentioned most recently in the article (DKC and Yoshi's Island?)
  • Oh no, the only three main games in the series. Reworded. Jaguar 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The sentence "Many of the tracks were included with tracks from Jumping Flash! 2" took a few reads for me to understand what it was saying, possibly because it isn't explained that it's referring to an OST until after a (brackets) break in the sentence.
  • It did appear confusing, so I've reworded this sentence to make it clearer. Jaguar 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Under Reception and legacy:

  • "received very positive reviews from magazines and critics alike" - wouldn't it be critics writing the magazine reviews?
  • Cut down to just critics. Jaguar 20:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "praised its unique innovation, advanced graphics for the time"..."The graphics were also critically acclaimed" - Duplication here with the praise of the graphics.
  • Reworded. Jaguar 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The graphics were also critically acclaimed by critics" - crit-overload here!
  • Re-structured. Jaguar 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "GameRevolution staff"..."IGN Staff" - staff or Staff? In fact, is the word staff even needed at all - would this read better as "GameRevolution also criticised..."
  • The reason why it reads as "IGN Staff" is because that is the placeholder name that is given in the actual reviews, it appears that whoever reviewed it back in 1996 didn't give their name as an author. 'Staff' is only capitalised because that is what it says on the review page, I can change it to lowercase if you want? Jaguar 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's necessary to mention staff at all, it doesn't add anything to my understanding compared to just referring to the publication. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed IGN staff from prose. Jaguar 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "despite its initial overshadow from newer platformers" - I don't understand what this is saying - what's an initial overshadow?
  • Referring to when it was first overshadowed by other games, seeing as this didn't gain a cult following I've removed 'initial'. Jaguar 20:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As with the lead, I still don't think overshadow sounds right when used this way. Wouldn't it be "overshadowed by" newer platformers? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Addressed. Jaguar 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "also praised Jumping Flash! as having lasting memories" - wouldn't the person have lasting memories of the game, as opposed to the game having the memories?
  • I believe the sentence is correct, people have lasting memories of games they like, especially experienced in their childhood. Jaguar 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly - people have lasting memories. The wording of the article says that the game has lasting memories. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah I see, reworded. Jaguar 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


  • The plot section covers the back story to the game (presumably the buildup from the manual), but doesn't cover the story of the game itself. What happens with the storyline as you progress through the game, is there some final showdown or an ending scene that could be covered?
  • I was afraid someone would ask this. I'm not sure on how to explain, this game has no logical story or narrative structure at all. It's sort of like how in Donkey Kong Country the game revolves around somebody stealing their bananas and their quest on travelling through the world to get them back. In this game, as one progresses through the level there are no further cutscenes or anything that suggests there is a story at all (there is, however, a structure in Jumping Flash! 2). I would consider the plot section the whole story and not a back story, so I'll reword some parts in the section to make it clearer. Jaguar 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nothing at all happens at the end of the game? No final boss fight on his home ground? The protagonist doesn't escape vowing to return in the sequel? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh yes, a boss fight and final cutscenes at the end, slightly reworded. Jaguar 17:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The gameplay sections mentions hidden bonus levels, but it didn't appear clear how these bonus levels were accessed? Just a quick mention if they're perhaps hidden in an existing level or accessed by collecting particular items would be nice.
  • Elaborated, I am happy to say that it looks much better this way. Jaguar 20:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


  • Sourcing-wise, a spot check shows that ref 12 cites the wrong page number and is missing an issue number. Most of the Edge citations and some of the Next Generation cites are missing publisher info. ISSNs would be nice if available.
  • My bad, fixed the page number and added the issue. Added all publishers, works and issues too. I'll try to find ISSNs as I go along but most are not available. Jaguar 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 8 was a Allgame deadlink, which I've added an archiveurl for, but it appears to be the page for the sequel. Is this correct, or should it be this link instead?
  • Don't worry this is correct, the gameplay for both games are exactly the same. If anyone disagrees with using this I can use the other link you provided me. Jaguar 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't checked that the other source backs up the material, but it's definitely an issue to cite a reference for a different game, no matter how similar they play. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right - replaced. I think I got confused back there. Jaguar 17:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 41 links to a (dead) Fortunecity website, which I'm not sure would be classed as reliable even if an archivelink was available.
  • Removed. Jaguar 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Ref 1 and 4 a different instruction manual from Ref 3? If so, is there anyway you could clarify which release this is from?
  • Ref 1 and 4 are the same manual, the ref 3 is slightly different because it only exists online and is the North American version of the manual (I'm not sure if it's significantly different from European manuals), but I don't know how to clarify how they're different. Jaguar 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Do you know what release they're from? Could you reference the Sony part number like you've done with the North American one? Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In Ref 32 (IGN reference for the Famitsu claim), I didn't notice the game listed in the Top 100 list? Is the other reference (Culdcept Central) considered reliable? I note that the reference makes the publisher out to be Famitsu, but I couldn't see a link between them on the website.
  • Culdcept Central appeared in the VG reliable sources search engine when I searched for it, so I take it maybe is, though I'm not sure how to judge. The Top 100 list is mentioned in a Giantbomb entry but I was discouraged from using it. Anyway fixed the publisher. Jaguar 20:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Under development:

  • "Japanese studio MuuMuu Co. Ltd (later renamed Ultra Co., Ltd), which inspires the name of the MuuMuu creatures that features in all three games" - reference is in Japanese which is no problem, however a Google Translate of the page didn't seem to show anything relating to the company name inspiring the creature names. Could you check and advise?
  • I remember reading it somewhere while I was on the search for sources, but I can't remember how to find it. But it's absolute logic, I'll try to find another source but I shouldn't see this as a problem? If not I'll have to remove it. Jaguar 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's in the article, it'll need a source no matter how logical it appears to be. If you take it out of the article, it'll be a relevant fact that's missing and the article wouldn't meet 1b in my opinion. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Under reception and legacy:

  • "The graphics were also critically acclaimed by critics and owners alike" - nothing to back up the owners acclaim here.
  • Owners refer to just people who play the game (an audience as a whole). I think as any review summarises the audience's feelings of a game as a whole, I'll leave this sentence alone for now, but if you want/disagree I can cut this sentence down? Jaguar 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • To me, owners would be folks who went out and bought the game, not publications that were likely sent copies to review by the game creators, people who borrowed a copy off their mate or people who rented a copy from Blockbuster. As such, I stand by the original point that there's nothing in the source material to backup this claim. Techtri (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "even suggesting that it could be the game of the year were it not for the emergence of other competition at the time" - This is attributed to ref 23 and 29, but the scan in 29 doesn't seem to cover it (only mentions it could be the "sleeper game of the year"). What was the exact quote from the publication that supports this?
  • Could be a small mix up, moved the refs around to support the quote. Jaguar 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • More of a large mix up now - the article attributes it to Gamepro, but you've added another source that isn't Gamepro to support it. There are now three references supporting this statement when there should only be one. Two of the references appear to be the same thing, which is the Gamepro review, but the article appears to be scanned in it's entirety and I can't see anything there along the lines of "this could've be game of the year". So same question - what's the exact quote from the publication that supports this? Techtri (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Fahey stated that Jumping Flash! would always have a large legacy in videogaming history, despite its initial overshadow from newer platformers such as Crash Bandicoot." - I couldn't see any comparisons to Crash Bandicoot in the provided ref.
  • Just used it as an example myself as it was a successful game at the time (which I probably shouldn't have). I've reworded. Jaguar 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


  • In the lead it mentions "Jumping Flash! has been described as being synonymous with Sony's début gaming hardware" but I couldn't see anything along these lines under the Reception/Legacy section.
  • It was used a technology demonstration and was also bundled with the console in Japan? I think that contributes to Sony's success (many of the reviews provided in this article states that this game gave Sony a 'boost'). I would leave this in as it gives the reader a general idea, but it's up to the reviewers if it should be removed? Jaguar 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • From WP:OR "(original research) includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Taking the fact it was a tech demo and a bundled title and coming to the conclusion that makes it synonymous with the hardware seems to be covered by the above statement. Techtri (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me know if I haven't explained any of the above very well, and I'll be happy to clarify. Thanks, Techtri (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Techtri: thank you for taking the time to review this, I've addressed everything but there are a couple of things you might want to take a look at. All the refs now have work, publishers, authors clarified etc. Thanks to your review the prose has definitely improved, so this article is improving as the review comes along. Of course it's still up to you if you want to oppose it, but before anything happens I would like to make sure everything is addressed and everyone here is satisfied with the article. Jaguar 21:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Staying with an oppose for the moment. The prose is still well short of being of a professional standard. Some of the references (1up, PSN) appear dead without archive links. The refs that are there are still a bit of a mess. See the Edge Ref 11 for example - are you sure that's on Page 41, because the scan of Page 42 (which appears to be cited both as Ref 12 and 15) seems to be the complete article? Techtri (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose: A closer look suggests that this article is a sloppy mess that should not have been promoted to GA, let alone FA status. Jaguar's seeming inability to accurately cite and summarize sources appears to be a widespread problem. For example, the Giant Bomb entry on Jumping Flash!—which is edited by random users and blatantly not a RS—says nothing about any Famitsu list. Nor does IGN support the claim that Famitsu "ranked Jumping Flash! among the magazine's top 120 PlayStation games of all time in 2000." In fact, IGN is discussing a list of only 100 games, and there is no evidence "Culdcept Central" (a fansite dedicated to the Culdcept series) is remotely reliable (it's certainly not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Reliable_sources). Likewise, while GamePro predicts Jumping Flash! might be the sleeper hit of the year, this is very different from a potential Game of the Year obscured by competitors not in existence at the time of writing. That Jaguar sees nothing wrong with using a review of Jumping Flash! 2 as a source on the gameplay of Jumping Flash!, that he doesn't understand why it would be problematic to attribute something "I remember reading" to a random source obscured by a language barrier, and that he is actually prepared to argue with FAC reviewers over blatant original research (acclaim from "owners and critics alike") or outright nonsense ("synonymous with Sony's début gaming hardware") says it all about his seriousness as an editor.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

TheTimesAreAChanging, I am still working hard on the article as I have been for months. Because this article has not received any in depth comments prior to this FAC review it was very difficult for me to make the changes. I do appreciate you taking the time to review this and I thank you for writing down your comments, but using this FAC as to judge my "seriousness as an editor" is needlessly personal, insulting and incorrect. On the contrary I have not argued with anyone regarding the comments, as to say during many GA reviews it is within the nominator's right to question some comments (which as a reviewer I respect). I will still address your concerns above and sort out everything to do with the refs, but I'm still frustrated on why you use this as a reason for personal attacks. Jaguar 14:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Fuji-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The Fuji-class battleships were the first ships of the type in the Imperial Japanese Navy. As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to built their own ships of such size and sophistication they were ordered from the UK shortly after the beginning of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894. Completed several years afterward they participated in the Russo-Japanese War where one ship was sunk by mines a few months after the start of the war and the other participated in all of the major naval actions of the war. The surviving ship, Fuji, was reclassified as a coast defense ship four years later. Thoroughly obsolete by that time, she spent World War I as a training ship and was stripped of her armor and guns in 1922 for service as a school hulk. As always I'm looking for infelicitous prose, unexplained jargon and any surviving bits of AmEnglish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Naval Annual should be italicized
  • File:Fuji_class_battleship_diagrams_Brasseys_1896.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
  • File:Fuji_class_12_inch_gun_turret_right_elevation.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • The license for published abroad prior to 1923 has been deprecated and is supposed to be replaced by the standard PD-old and PD-1923 license in combination. Not sure why PD-old license says that the author died 70 years ago, but it's irrelevant because both drawings were published before 1923.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support my usual few quibbles:
  • I think the first sentence tries to do too much, and should be split.
  • "the delivery of the three lightly armoured Matsushima-class cruisers" The word "the" before delivery implies to my ears that this is something you've mentioned before, which you haven't. Suggest "the three lightly armoured Matsushima-class cruisers ordered from France would ..."
  • "stowed in the turret were 18 shells that allowed a limited amount of firing at any angle before the turret had to be traversed back to its loading position." Usually I, as a lay person, can follow along fine with what you are describing, but this threw me. These are shells, what, that are fired? And why only a limited amount of firing at any angle?
  • I'm also inexperienced re ships, though I have been round the Belfast. My assumption was that early turrets could only be reloaded when faced in a particular direction, this limitation was resolved in later ship designs where turrets could be reloaded from magazines whichever way they faced, saving a lot of space in the turret. If that's right it could do with a sentence of explanation, if wrong then both Wehwalt and I are flummoxed by that bit and it would be safe to assume that some of the readers would be as well. ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "used superior Harvey armour of the same thickness" instead of ...
  • "The following year, during the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905" There's some redundancy here regarding years.
  • Also noticed that and rephrased it. ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "the most senior officers" I'm not sure the "most" really conveys anything additional to the reader.
  • "their circumnavigation of the world" Unless the Ambassador went with the fleet around the world, advise changing "their" to "its". And I'd either pipe to our article on the US ambassador to Japan or to the person who held the post. Was he an ambassador or a minister in 1908, btw?
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've addressed the issues that you raised and hope that my changes are suitable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks fine--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support have made some tweaks, hope you like them. Some minor quibbles:
  • "This raised the number of crewmen to 652 and later to 741" from about 650 officers and men? Or is crewmen a term that doesn't include officers? Not sure what the and later relates to, it isn't obvious from that section, could it be the conversion to Japanese guns or did she get antiaircraft guns added after WW1?
  • Why did you choose that lead picture instead of commons:File:Japanese battleship Fuji.jpg?
  • The masts are quite prominent, worth a sentence of explanation? ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking this over. Usually, but not always, crewmen just refers to enlisted men, but my sources don't actually specify that and also don't say why the complement increased, although I'd suspect that the switch to heavier guns meant that they needed more men for the loading crews. The masts are typical of the period as they needed to support searchlight platforms, lookouts and signal halliards through the pitching and rolling motions of the ship in all weathers. I don't know how I missed that photo! I'm glad that you checked to see what else was available. I've moved the postcard down to the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

John Barrymore[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

John Barrymore was a truly, truly great actor. Possibly the finest thespian America has ever produced, his 1925 Hamlet was a huge success and he was lauded by fellow thesps such as John Gielgud and Orson Welles; the production was so ground-breaking that it is a still model for modern performances. Behind the mask of Barrymore the actor lay a very different and damaged creature who had been an alcoholic from the age of 14. His drinking, and his destructive behaviour wrecked four marriages, his career and his reputation. He ended his career playing parodies of himself in shoddy B-movies in order to pay off some of monumental debts.

This article has been through a root and branch re-write over the last few months, followed by a thorough copyedit and review to Americanise my rather British writing; an excellent cast turned up at the peer review recently, and I hope I've done justice to their thoughts. Any and all constructive comments regarding the article are welcome. - SchroCat (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment - I gave an image review at the PR. However, two new images have been added since then that I'm not too sure of, namely File:Arsene Luipin still.jpg and File:Romeo and Juliet scene 3.jpg. It looks like We hope has used a standard template from posters (which generally have the copyright notice on the front) rather than film stills such as these (which, if they have a notice, is liable to have them on the back). If the source included both sides, this wouldn't be a problem, but since Dr Macro only includes the one side, we can't be too sure that the images truly are free. The third new image at least has evidence that it was published elsewhere without a copyright notice... but these two, no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The photos are from the posters and greyscaled. We hope (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's Doctor Macro's Arsene Lupin page-the poster/lobby card came from there only because it has no copyright marks. This is Doctor Macro's page for Romeo and Juliet--nothing came from there. They're derived from the 2 posters/lobby cards. We hope (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Arsene Lupin poster.jpg Arsene Luipin still.jpg Romeo and Juliet lobby card 2.jpg Romeo and Juliet scene 3.jpg
  • In that case, I'd note that you are basing this off of the stills' use in the posters (rather than just including the image and expecting others to realize "yeah, this is how it's PD").  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The idea re: doing something like this came to me recently when some non-free stills for The Temptress had to go, copyright check showed the film was renewed and the Lantern magazine were no help. I'll need to go back and make all of the stills derived from posters and lobby cards a little more obvious as to how they came to be. We hope (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • All-righty--have gotten all of them from our legal still into this format. :) We hope (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images (Images area alright). Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for all your help at PR, both on the prose, but largely on the images, which are always a ticky area!. (Thanks also to We hope for your work in tracking down the copyrights, and finding new images!) cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support – I see with considerable surprise that this article runs to getting on for 12,000 words. Well, it doesn't seem at all too long, and reading it a third time for this FAC review was a pleasure (except for "authored" in Legacy – ouch!). The text meets all the FA criteria, in my view: the prose is good, the balance judicious, the presentation neutral, and the focus firmly on the essential, with a leavening of just the right amount of personal detail to bring the man to life on the page. The images are excellent (though I note the exchange above) and very much to the point. I think a round of applause is called for. – Tim riley talk 10:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for your thoughts throughout: as always they are much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Afterthought: some images lack alt-text. Tim riley talk 10:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
My usual oversight - I'll deal with it shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
All now added. Thanks for reminding me! - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Admittedly I did spend a few hours looking through on this and made some minor additions to try to fill in some gaps I saw but as it has been so impeccably well-researched it was difficult to add anything of real substance without bloating it. I'm convinced now that this has been researched as well as reasonably possible and is a wonderful summary of a core American actor. It's clearly had a lot of research put into it (8 biographies and numerous news sources I believe) and I think there's a fine balance here. Great job Schro and everybody involved with the peer review. Normally I would object to an infobox but perhaps in his case with numerous wifes and family it makes it less confusing having them there for reference. If there is support to remove it though I'm not going to argue with it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Doc! Your thoughts and comments here and at PR were their usual great help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ps, on the IB point, I completely agree! - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We hope has done a fantastic job with the images. Is it intentional to link The Sea Beast twice in the two photos though?♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. OVERLINKING ignores image captions etc, where additional links can be used. As I've used links in other captions where applicable, I've gone for one here on the grounds of consistancy; it looked a little odd being the only image without such a link when I previewed the addition. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Use a consistent date format
  • FN59: DC?
  • Quotes within quote marks should be single quotes (eg " 'Fortune Hunter' ")
  • FN140 doesn't match other newspapers
  • Fn149 should be endash
  • Compare FNs 160 and 170
  • FN191 is missing location
  • FN218: is this a web source or something else?
  • FN216 requires subscription and should be tagged as such
  • FN210, 211: publisher shouldn't be italicized - check for others
  • Golden: Kentucky is abbreviated KY not KT. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As always, many thanks Nikkimaria. I think I've covered all these. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I copy-edited this article at the start of the PR and have watched subsequent changes for American English idioms and spelling, as well as prose generally. I agree with Tim riley's comments above: this is a well-researched, well-written, balanced, readable, nicely illustrated study of this important actor, and I support its promotion to PR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Ssilvers, your huge help in Americanising the prose was enlightening in places, and hugely useful in improving the article. Many, many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Support (subject to resolution of all image and sourcing issues): Barrymore belonged to my parents' and grandparents' generation, and I've never seen any of his films, but I had heard of him. He seems to be one of those actors – possibly Orson Welles was another – who conducted their careers in reverse: from bang to whimper and then silence. I have learned a great deal more from this very thorough article, on which I had a lot to say (mainly quibbles) at peer review. I've nothing to add now, beyond my contribution to the escalating murmers of satisfaction. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Many thanks for all the work you did at PR Brian: the article would have any of the polish or lustre it has, were it not for your fine eye earlier. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support - looks extremely well done. Jimknut (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Jimknut! Your time and thoughts are very much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Support This is a fine article on John Barrymore-it gives equal treatment to his talents and to his troubled personal life. I've learned a lot about both the actor and the man while reading this. He died long before most of us were born, so we need articles like this to give us a proper "introduction". We hope (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks We Hope! Your thoughts here and at PR were a great help - especially in solving the copyright questions and issues. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Abductive[edit]

  • I find that there is an excessive use of the "According to ..." construction. There seem to be three biographers of Barrymore; Morrison, Norden, and Peters. I would prefer that no biographer's or newspaper's name appear in the lead, since the lead is supposed to be a summary, not a place for quotes and cluttering details. I would prefer that biographer's names only be mentioned where one is saying something that none of the others are; if a sentence represents consensus, then nobody's name in particular needs to be cluttering up the article inline. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Slight correction, there are seven biographers (and the autobiography as well). I find that quite often a quote without identification can be misleading, vague or just insufficient. Sometimes we need to identify the source of a particular quote, without making visitors break their reading to establish who it was that said something. Having said that, I will go through to ensure that the use in each case is justified, or if some can be pruned. In terms of the lead, the quotes there quite appropriately: they are bold statements about the person and his position in the history of American theatre, so I am happy they remain; being such bold statements, I think we do need to provide some attribution as to the source. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In an encyclopedia one is to report consensus, not string together quotes. Paraphrase the consensus view. Abductive (reasoning) 12:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you: I am aware of the encyclopaedic approach, which does not necessarily eschew the use of quotes; indeed, out MoS is quite clear on the matter in WP:CITELEAD. The quotes in the lead (and elsewhere in the article, have certainly not been 'strung together' here, but the use has been carefully considered. - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mark Miller[edit]

Less than neutral Support FAC - for comprehensiveness, images, sources and writing. (the below isn't to hold this hostage so I am !voting -adding support or oppose in the FAC polling now). Doesn't not need my support. I see some ownership issues from the nominating editor and a heavy dose of attitude. This will pass without my support so I don't feel there is any issue in changing my cote from a lack of cooperation and collaboration from the nominator.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A quick scan shows a really wonderful looking article that seems very comprehensive at a glance. I am going to do a more detailed look but the most immediate thing that comes to mind here is; As important as Barrymore is in the family line of performers and as important as the Barrymore family and the collateral lines are to American theatre and film, I feel this article really needs a family tree. I would very much like to attempt a family tree in the legacy section to show the genealogy of the family line. Articles about the patriarchs and/or matriarchs are especially good places for the EV of the tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought about a family tree, but decided against it in the end. As you say, the article is about John Barrymore, not the remainder of the family. We link to the Barrymore family in a couple of places, and there is an extensive tree in that article. There's also an image of a tree too, but I think that is less useful.I think the main tree is in the right place (in the Barrymore article), and I'm not sure inflating the Legacy section would be the right move, it would certainly mean getting rid of the existing image, and dropping in a block of text to explain the connections to less connected members, only to justify a tree that isn't needed: we cover the important individuals in JB's life without the need of a tree so far, and the inclusion of one would be a backward step I feel. Many thanks for your thoughts on this point, and I look forward to your closer read. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I strongly disagree and think just removing a good faith addition in a FAC without very solid reasons within guidelines, policy and procedure or at least a consensus of editors is just not a good idea. Disagreeing with the addition and asking to form a consensus is the normal right. The tree I created specifically for the John Barrymore article is extremely tight and small and nothing like the massive and confusing tree you point to on a page that has multiple issues. The legacy section would not be inflating the Legacy section and the choice of wording describing that content is not very civil to be honest. First, the family tree has direct relevance to the legacy section as each step in the tree is a part of that legacy. Each person is discussed at length and John Barrymore is one of the patriarchs of the family where such information will be looked for and where such a graphic illustration would be both expected and have good encyclopedic value. I believe the inclusion is an improvement from the explanation given above.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Please do not edit war to force the issue: this thread will discuss the matter much better without the upset to the article. I will address your above points shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel if you disagreed with the content that is verifiable and are requesting proof of my burden of evidence that would be one thing, but you were basing off your own opinion. It is actually easy enough to quickly deal with. This is a good faith contribution to what I see an important encyclopedic listing of a very notable part of a theatrical dynasty. My only real objection was the removal on FAC without discussion. There may sometimes be improvements you don't agree with that others do, but if a consensus of editors is for exclusion I can accept that of course.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The question of whether an article is at FAC or not is immaterial. Any editor can add or subtract to articles, and that edit can be reverted. That was the case here. I had already put forward an objection that you ignored when you added the overly bloated tree. I am happy I did not transgress any guidelines or policies in removing it. You did when you edit warred to force it back in, when there was no consensus to have to there in the first place. I have already given some reasons why I object to the tree, but I am happy to open it up to others to form a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
"The question of whether an article is at FAC or not is immaterial" Incorrect. it is especially important to be on our best behavior. I re-added the tree because you removed verifiable content for no reason other than "You just didn't like it". You also say: "Any editor can add or subtract to articles, and that edit can be reverted." Of course, which is what I did. I have not crossed the three revert rule. That would be a violation of policy. Reverting a revert does not follow BRD, but is not against policy, especially when you are not following the spirit or intention of BRD yourself. BRD is not an excuse to revert by itself. Consensus does not have to be reached before adding content. What we have is an good faith contribution that even another editor below feels was an improvement. You removed it but gave no basis in policy. You actually erred when you reverted me the second time only because you then should have allowed it to remain until consensus excluded it or accepted it. Requiring consensus before adding content is not within policy to require. Deleting content on an article is not best practice if it can be improved or if it is acceptable. We all have differing views, but to keep things out in this manner can be seen as ownership. I am sure it would not bother you if consensus was for it to remain and could live with whatever the consensus is, as I can.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No Mark, the fact it's at FAC means nothing as far as editing etiquette goes, and there was no need for you to re-insert material that had been taken out. You also misrepresent me when you claim I reverted on the basis that I do not like it: I have said no such thing and had begun to outline my thoughts above which you ignored when you re-inserted the table. - SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Mark, Gavin is right. The table is in the process of being discussed and it is not acceptable for you to shoehorn it in devoid of any consensus. I like the idea of a tree, but I'm not so sure it is of any relevance to John, more so his family, which this article is not about. I have indicated this below in my post. Cassiantotalk 10:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry but that is incorrect. I also did not try to shoehorn it in while discussion was underway. It was removed with no real reasoning. I made a talk page (FAC) discussion and made my intention to add the tree (boldly) and there was no opposition while I took a few hours to make it. I didn't whip it out and shove it down his throat. Now, when he noticed it and saw the discussion he should have realized it was there and a discussion was underway and not removed it until the consensus was for the removal. Now, I believe it is relevant to John as one of the patriarchs of a famous theatrical dynasty and I stand by that.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Mark, sorry, but the discussion was underway. I replied to the thread at 8:26; you inserted the tree at 8:38. I did not need consensus to remove something I thought was not advantageous to the article, especially as I had raised an opposition to it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me but I started the discussion and you commented an hour and a half later just about when I was adding it to the article. And whether you understand it or not, do have to have a consensus to remove something. If I added it and you removed it, that means you don't want it and I did want it...that is no consensus. Don't you get that? The content should have stayed until a discussion. if a dispute arises that cannot be settled it would be returned to the last stable version. Is that you intent? to raise this to a level of a dispute? I'm not. I am just explaining that you were wrong for removing it once the proper discussion was made. Right now there is no consensus but you were the one who removed it. I added the content. There is no consensus for the removal.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't need to have the content in the article, my objection is on its removal without discussion and only because of opinion and not over policy or guidelines. As I said, if it is a good faith improvement that you may object to, it should be discussed not deleted unless it violates our standards in some manner. That is why I feel I see a slight ownership issue and I am not implying it is an ongoing or habitual problem or in any way something that the editor has a pattern of. I just see it here because of the way the deletion was made and accusations followed as if bullying me was the route to take. It isn't. Sorry, but while I am not saying there is something to be intervene on I am not impressed with the treatment I received here.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, my objection was the inclusion while the discussion was ongoing (I had commented prior to the tree being included). I also object rather strongly to your personal attack above. I note you deleted my request on your talk page to remove it. - SchroCat (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion was not ongoing. I stated what I was going to do and I did it but you removed it. That's all. Pretty simple. You insisted that I violated guidelines but didn't point to the guideline I violated. Yes, why bother going to my talk page when we are communicating right here. Look, I am sorry you feel that you are being personally attacked. That is how I feel. But I am not the one who removed the content and then made accusations of edit warring when no edit war existed and no 3rr broken. I stick by what I said as it is what I feel from the behavior here. Not from just trying to discuss you as a distraction. I just wish you would return the tree and then discuss why it should be removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Should the family tree be used in the article under the Legacy section[edit]

The only other family tree on Wikipedia is oversized and extremely confusing and placed on an article with multiple issues. This small and tight family tree has great EV and direct relevance to the section and the continuing legacy of the family in theatre and film.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC) </noinclude>

Maurice Barrymore Georgiana Drew
Lionel Barrymore Doris Rankin Irene Fenwick Ethel Barrymore Russell Griswold Colt John Barrymore Katherine Corri Harris Blanche Oelrichs Dolores Costello Elaine Barrie
Ethal Mary Samuel Ethel Diana Barrymore John Drew Barrymore Jaid Makó Cara Williams Dolores Ethel Mae Barrymore
Drew Barrymore John Blyth Barrymore

Mackensen-class battlecruiser[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I originally wrote this article 5 years ago, or so, and at the time wrote it off as a perennial GA. Since then, I've gotten access to new sources and was able to significantly overhaul the article. It passed a MILHIST A-class review back in April, and I think it's ready for FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Mackensen_class_battlecruisers_scetch.svg: since the sources given are copyrighted, I would be concerned about this being a derivative work
  • File:SMS_Derfflinger.PNG is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for checking these. For the first one, I don't know exactly where the line between derivative works and new works lies, but I can tell you that it's at least not a direct copy of the sketch in Gröner's book so I'd guess there might be a claim for the artist's own work (I don't have access to the other two). Of course I'd hate to lose such a nice sketch. I fixed the second image. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I suppose one could also make the argument that the drawings in the books are derivatives of the actual blueprints, which are of course long-since PD. Which is to say that if the drawings in the books constitute enough of an artistic expression to pass the threshold of originality, then surely this drawing passes the same bar. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


  • The second paragraph of the design section is kinda awkward. I'd suggest rewriting it with the limitations imposed by Tirpitz and the dock/lock sizes up front and the solution ending the para.
    • I'm a little confused by this - Tirpitz imposing the limitations was the solution. But see the change I made.
  • And the last para of that section has a similar issue. I'd suggest that it begin with the protective advantages of the oil/coal storage and say that the designers saw no point in changing that or somesuch.
    • See if what I added gives it a bit more context.
  • German-language sources should state as much in the bibliography.
    • Added
  • Suggest expanding state and national abbreviations for those readers who would be unfamiliar with them.
    • I guess this was done before I started purging the abbreviations altogether. All are removed now.
  • Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing the article, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Support (on readability): Nice article. There are some conversions missed in the "Armament" section (for us non-metric readers) that should be added. Otr500 (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think you're referring to the "35 cm" - that's converted earlier in the article. Thanks for reviewing the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually, after another look I saw some range figures that weren't converted - fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2011)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Drive-by comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

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

Comments from User: Gloss[edit]

Article looks okay, but the prose needs some work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1987 Giro d'Italia[edit]

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I've put in some considerable labor into the article to bring it from what it was ([4]). I've nominated it before [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 Giro d'Italia/archive1 here]. The nomination stalled due to no reviews, but many expressed that I re-nominate when I have the time, and now I do. I'll get to any comments quickly, so be prepared for prompt responses. Thanks in advance!

Also, I have perused the internet databases in search of information on doping controls and cases at the 1987 giro and have not found anything; so that is why there is nothing about doping in the article. I haven't found a source that claims there weren't doping cases either. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. I had some trouble figuring out where you need hyphens vs. dashes because I don't know what some of the team names mean, but someone will probably figure it out and fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Those should be dashes, fixed those. And I'm fine with the changes you've made with the lead. And in cycling, the team names are generally sponsors, so that's why there are so many hyphens in the names. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 01:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll be looking over this anew today. Hopefully I'll get all my comments together in time to post them for today, but I should be finished by tomorrow at the latest. ceranthor 15:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Ceranthor
  • Defending champion Roberto Visentini took the first race leader's maglia rosa (English: pink jersey) after winning the opening prologue, before losing the lead to Breukink the following stage. - "After + gerund" followed by "before + gerund" doesn't work well. I'd suggest changing up the sentence after "prologue". ceranthor 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The fifteenth stage of the 1987 Giro has been recognized as an iconic event in the history of the Giro - Double usage of Giro is redundant. Maybe in the history of the race?
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Hard to find much to tweak here, but a few quibbles.
  • The presentation of the teams – where each team's roster and manager are introduced in front the media and local dignitaries – took place on 20 May, at the Casino of San Remo.[1][2] - In front the media?
haha Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • From the riders that began this edition, 133 made it to the finish - I don't like "made it to the finish". What about completed the race, or finished the Giro?
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Pre-race favorites
  • It was widely believed that Roche came into the race in great shape after winning the Tour de Romandie and finishing high in a few single day races.[6][7][9] - Finishing high? That doesn't sound right grammatically.
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Route and stages
  • The organizers chose to include one rest day.[7] When compared to the previous year's race, the race was 56.4 km (35 mi) longer, contained one more rest day and individual time trial.[17] - Does that mean that the previous year, there was no rest day? In that case, I don't think mentioning that the race "contained one more rest day" is particularly relevant.
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Race overview
  • His performance in stage 1a was enough to earn him the coveted race leader's maglia rosa (English: pink jersey),[20] - Doesn't sound like the writing of an encyclopedia to me. I'd like plain "earned him" rather than "was enough to"; either way, this way it's more concise and clean.
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • and the second placed rider.[22][23] - Is it traditional to write second placed rider? I prefer second place rider or rider in second place.
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The day of racing ended finished with a field sprint that Paolo Cimini barely won after overtaking Rosola in the final meters.[28][29] - The placement of barely seems a bit odd to me. Did he win because he barely overtook Rosola, or do you mean to say that he just barely won? I think this sentence is a little unclear.
Took out the barely Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Stay consistent! You had previously spelled out numbers for time then use "Roche crossed the line in twelfth place, 56 seconds".
I was taught that you spell out the numbers under 20, so what would you say I should do here? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You also have the following sentence in "Race overview": Carrera Jeans-Vagabond beat out the Del Tongo squad by fifty-four seconds to win the leg. Pick one style and stick to it throughout the article!
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the last two sections withstanding, this looks good so far. Nice work, Disc Wheel! ceranthor 20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Classification leadership
  • This section looks fine.
  • A La Repubblica writer believed it to be the second worst performance by Italian riders after 1972, since no Italian riders finished inside the top four and many famous Italian cyclists did not complete the event.[68] - I'm not sure "believed" is the best verb choice here.
I'm stuck on this one, I cannot think of another word to use, any ideas? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Since it's an opinion, I like opined (that), suggested (that it was)... generally any synonym that expresses an opinion should work fine. ceranthor 21:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mario Fossati, of La Repubblica, considered that stage winners Johan van der Velde and Jean-François Bernard performed very strongly, - Considered is definitely not the best word choice here. It's very clunky and I've never heard it used with that.
Fixed Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Many writers point to the fifteenth stage as the defining moment of the race;[7][30][32][65][61][67][70] some have even said that it is one of the most famous in the Giro d'Italia and cycling history.[7][70] - Who is "some"?
One is a book author, I added him. But other is the author of this [5] but I cannot find his name anywhere on the page. What should I do? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I would just say "book author" and a "[Insert Name of the Newspaper From That Source] writer"... ceranthor 21:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Once these are resolved, I'll look through the references as best as I can. ceranthor 19:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support - I think this is ready. It seems like the sources check out, but the Italian makes it difficult to make sure they're totally okay. Disc Wheel, do you know of any Italian-speaking editors who can testify to the veracity of the Italian language sources (excluding the clearly reliable ones, like BBC and major news sources)? ceranthor 05:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! As for knowing an Italian editor, I do not, my wikipedia connections are pretty thin. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I left a note at WT:ITALY. We'll see if anyone turns up. ceranthor 14:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments by Parutakupiu

Hey Disc Wheel. Going for a second featured Giro, hey? I've been already copyediting the lead and the team sections, but in the meantime here's some comments/questions:

  • In the team list, could you specificy the country of origin of each team? We know that nine are foreign, but not which ones. Maybe adding the country between parentheses?
Let me check the Italian sources and get back to you, thats where I remember getting that fact from. If it doesn't say in there, then I likely won't be able to add the countries. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Well I found the reference and it just says "eleven Italian (against nine foreign)" so I don't really have much to go on for what teams came from where (I moved the reference up to the line). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, ref 5, which has the team list, shows the nationality in parenthesis just after each team name! Parutakupiu (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
My only issue with adding the nationalities is that WikiProject Cycling reached a decision that flags should not be tied to the trade teams, but only to the national teams link to discussion. I know they talk of flags there, but I feel like adding the nationality would be the same as adding the flag. What do you think? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 23:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is not essential. But then you do refer to nine teams not being based in Italy, and this can raise the question/curiosity about which of them are not from Italy. Anyway, if you ended up adding the "country of origin", I ask it to be just the name, no flags. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I might just remove the phrase. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 02:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you point to me where in refs 3 and 4 is stated the number of riders that finished the race?
I replaced them with better references! Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Parutakupiu (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I've finished copyediting the whole article. I will now make a route map, similar to the one I did for the 1988 edition. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Map added. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It looks great, your edits and the map, I attempted to make a map for the 1988 one before you made one for that article and I could not get anything good! I also removed the foreign team bit, just to go by what was agreed upon by the WP:CYC people. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 23:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

She Has a Name[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a Canadian play that deals with human trafficking in Thailand. Although this is the third featured article candidacy for this article, the previous FACs took place more than a year and a half ago and, since then, I have done further work on this article and I have also seen several other articles through successful FACs, so I believe that both the article and I are better prepared to see a new FAC through successfully. I have reviewed the concerns raised in the previous FACs and I believe that they have been addressed. Neelix (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:She_Has_a_Name.jpg: suggest filling in the "n.a." parameters in the FUR
  • Several images have "evidence" listed in the Permission field - the licensing template already links to that statement, there's no need to relink it, and if it is kept it shouldn't be called evidence because it doesn't demonstrate that these files have that license
  • File:She_Has_a_Name_2011_-_Death.jpg: what is the licensing status of the set? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the image review, Nikkimaria! I have filled in the "n.a." parameters in the FUR of She_Has_a_Name.jpg. I removed the word "evidence" from all of the relevant images, although I left the rest of the content in these sections because I thought that leaving them blank might make it look like there were no permissions. If you feel that the content of these sections should be further altered, please let me know. I have e-mailed Stephen Waldschmidt about the licensing status of the set depicted in She_Has_a_Name_2011_-_Death.jpg. Hopefully, he will respond soon; he has been very responsive to previous inquiries. Neelix (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cliftonian feedback[edit]

Support. I think the article now meets the FA criteria. Great work David, and good luck with the rest of this nomination. A fine effort indeed. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Romance (Luis Miguel album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

In 1991, Mexican singer Luis Miguel released an album called Romance, a collection of 12 classic boleros. This peculiar recording singlehandedly brought back popularity for the bolero in the 1990s. Miguel was just known as a teen idol before this recording and not only did he get the younger audience into boleros, but he also gained a following with an older crowd. It was so successful, that he recorded three more bolero albums in his career and Romance is one of the bestselling albums of all time in Mexico. I previously worked on Romances (Luis Miguel album) (the third album in the Romance series) and it became the first article about a Spanish-language album to be FA. When Romances was suggested to me to appear as TFA on Valentine's Day (it didn't), that's when I decided I would work on this article hoping to get it TFA on Valentine's Day next year. I never thought I would be able to pull it off until I had some Mexican newspaper archives which helped me a lot on finding how this album came to be.

Note to the spotchecker Most of the articles are in Spanish and articles from El Informador can be searched here. I currently do not know how to link articles from that site. Erick (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Query about news archival moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Based on content and prose. EddieHugh (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This simply isn't ready.

On content:

  • There are major things missing, not the least of which is anything at all about the music itself. More than a dozen musicians are listed... what did they do? Strings on every track (although only a viola player is listed)? Tempo always the same? Any instrumental bits? Any indication, other than "romantic lyrics", of what the songs are about? Also, what sort of songs did he usually perform?
I have already indicated what the musicians were credited for on the personnel section, I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to say about them. The only information found about the music besides being boleros are that the arrangements are accompanied by a string orchestra. Boleros are just love songs with "poetic lyrics" (which I just added into the article based on the same source I used). The article gives an overview of what all the songs have in common (being romantic love songs and poetic lyrics), information about the song themselves belong on their respective articles (see Inolvidable (song)) as this album is just a collection of songs as opposed to an album with new compositions. I included what Miguel usually performed by including what kind of music J.C. Calderon produced for Miguel before.
Only 2/12 of the songs have an article, 1 of which has info on the LM version. It's not so much info on the songs themselves (although that would be useful – see below), but info on LM's version of them, that's required. Billboard indicated that the album "categorically redefined the interpretations of traditional boleros", but with no information about what had gone before, and almost no information on his versions, the reader is left to wonder about what was so amazing about them. On the musicians: did all the tracks have the same instrumentation? Any solos? All with strings? etc, etc. There is different poetry, different romance (even the lyrics to the two songs with articles here vary – one on loss, one on new love (in the English version at least) – these should not be lumped together into one class. In summary, add basic info to help someone who hasn't heard the album to get an idea of what can be heard on it. EddieHugh (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@EddieHugh: Okay, I've expanded more on the information on boleros themselves on the parenthesis talking about it to explain how "bolero" is traditionally defined and its music origins. Otherwise, information such as bolero's decline belongs on the article about it not here. On the same source you mentioned for Billboard, Leila Cobo (as well as Mark Holston on the critical reception section) describes Bebu Silvetti's arrangements so readers can see what made Miguel's versions special. All the sources that talk about the arrangements describe the whole album being "string-laden" and if they had mentioned any differentiations between each track as far as music goes, I would have added them already but they don't. The audio sample provided on this article provides a good example of how the album generally sounds like to the readers. The credits and personnel section includes every instrument provided on each track and specifies which track has a specific instrument by a musician. Erick (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I was about to suggest that the description of the arrangements should be put in the section describing the music... I've checked the 13 top-importance FA at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums and all of them have descriptions of at least some of the tracks, mostly in a dedicated section. If more than half of the Legacy section is on how the album revitalized interest in boleros, then some information on what interest there was before, and why, is needed. There's info in the article "Bolero Kings (and Queens) Sing Songs of Love" from the Wall Street Journal, July 23, 1992, p. A10 (it also describes one song and passes on useful info about LM's age at the time). (Minor things: I didn't suggest more on boleros generally; the Personnel section lists one viola for one track, so we still don't know where the strings came from.) EddieHugh (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
@EddieHugh: Those albums however have original compositions so it's important that they describe the tracks for its meaning and music. This album on the other hand only consists of covers (compared with Romances (Luis Miguel album) which is also a FA-article and I even wrote information about the original compositions on that album too). Could you please show me where you got access to that article? I looked on Google, Highbeam, and Questia and couldn't find it. From what I understand what you're trying to say about interests in bolero, I mentioned below that bolero's popularity was at its height in the 1950s until rock took over it's popularity in the 1960s. Boleros then became "uncool" with the younger crowd for a long time until this album came out. I added more information about how the youth perceived boleros before LM recorded them on the Legacy section. For the last part, I only listed whatever what was on the album's booklet and sources say it is an album full of string-laden arrangements so I'm going by what they say. On a side note, thank you for taking the time for replying my comments. Erick (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Anything that provides historical WSJ access would do. ProQuest, for instance. EddieHugh (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@EddieHugh: I'm afraid I do not have access to ProQuest, could you please e-mail the article to me? Erick (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I do what I can to isolate my e-mail from here. I think that there's somewhere on Wikipedia where these things can be requested. Hopefully someone else can advise. EddieHugh (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

On prose (and content to some extent), taking just the Background and recording section:

  • "was in the works". Too casual.
Changed to "was in preparation". I'm considering using the word "production", but I'm unsure about the over usage of the word in the paragraph.
  • "since he signed with the label". When was that?
  • "Original plans were". Not 'The original plans were'?
  • "Production was scheduled to begin in April, with Italian- and English-language albums to follow". Does that mean Eng and Ita versions of the album, or completely different albums?
Specified by using studio albums (although the source doesn't really clarify).
  • "Miguel had a contractual deadline with his label to record new material". New in what sense? He recorded an album of covers.
New in the sense having to record something. Per the source from the Sun-Sentinel: "Luis Miguel's contract with Warner had a deadline the singer could not meet if he looked for new songs."
  • "a television program interviewed where they both were interviewed". First "interviewed" → "interview", but the repetition is bad anyway.
Removed first instance of "interviewed".
  • "He previously performed boleros (including songs recorded by Manzanero) during his 20 Años tour". When? Content: what exactly was 'wrong' with baleros anyway? Why were they unfashionable, and since when (useful for a background section)?
According to Mark Holston on the article Ageless romance with bolero, and The Rouge Guide to Cuban Music by Philip Sweeney, boleros became unfashionable when rock and roll became the prominent genre in Latin America throughout the 1960s.
  • "manager Hugo López". Manager of what?
Changed to "his manager Hugo López"
  • "hired Manzanero to take over the project". Take over in what sense?
  • "it would be Miguel's first self-produced album". Two sentences later, in another para, it's co-produced. Put this stuff together.
I changed it state that it was the first time Miguel became a producer for his own album.
  • "Miguel and Manzanero selected which boleros to cover for the album out of five hundred songs". This should be earlier, with the other information on song selection. Rephrasing for flow is advisable, too.
  • "Seven of the album's twelve tracks were recorded by September 13, 1991". And the other five?
I was unable to find anything what happened after the incident not even when recording resumed.

A quick note on fidelity to sources:

  • "In the United States, Romance debuted at number ten on the Billboard Latin Pop Albums chart for the week of December 14, 1991; it reached number one two weeks later, replacing Daniela Romo's Amada Más Que Nunca.[50][51]" Those sources put it at 10 on Dec 14; I'm not sure where they state that it debuted at 10. Dec 14 to Jan 11 is not 2 weeks. Which of those 2 sources has it replacing DR? (It could be that the Billboard site isn't working properly, as it has space for that info, but is not displaying it. Either way, a more stable source is preferable.) EddieHugh (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
According (the url is[0]=is_bmdb_album_id%3A346727&f[1]=itm_field_chart_id%3A295&refine=1 it keeps screwing up when I try to link it), it did debut on the chart on the week of December 14, 1991. I fix the number of weeks it took to reach #1 (I forgot that the Latin pop albums chart were posted bi-weekly at the time of the album's release when I was counting them). The number one album for each week can be found on the bottom by using the "Browse the Latin Pop Albums Archives".

Hello EddieHugh, I believe I have addressed your main issues about the article. If there's anything else that needs fixing, please let me know. In regards, Erick (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • Do we have specific dates for the single release dates or are the months the closest verification we can find?
No, the months are the closest verification I can find.
  • I'd like to see "Promotion" renamed "Singles and promotion" just so readers know where to find them at quick glance.
  • "Certifications" should not be in the same column with "Charts and certifications". I'd personally like to see "Charts" as its own unit and "Certifications" as a grouping underneath it.

WikiRedactor (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: Fixed everything you addressed. I looked at our article Fijación Oral, Vol. 1 to see how the certifications section should be handled and I followed the format. Thanks for the reply! Erick (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Jesus nahm zu sich die Zwölfe, BWV 22[edit]

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach, one of two serving as his audition pieces for the post of Thomaskantor in Leipzig for which he became known. He had to show off, being not a favourite (Telemann and Grauper were) and the only candidate without university training. You may have met his more youthful BWV 172 before. This work is setting standards for the later cantata cycles. The article received a GA review by Cwmhiraeth in March 2013. After expansion of the background and especially the audition, I could win peers Montanabw and Tim riley for an informal review, thanking both for questions, copy-editing and a nice new table of the recordings. Looking at 7 February as the date of the first performance, I dare to skip a formal peer review and invite more questions about improvements. I happened to receive thoughts on collaboration and compromise on my talk page today ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment – I don't think my turning the list of recordings into tabular form disqualifies me from supporting this article, if the coordinator is happy with that. As Gerda's Bach articles so often do, it filled me with enthusiasm and sent me off to listen to the piece. The prose is fine, the coverage comprehensive and balanced, and, so far as the text goes, in my judgment the FAC criteria are all met. Lovely stuff. Tim riley talk 16:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Jim[edit]

Nice article. I know little about the topic, so general textual nitpicks follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Estomihi. —Why this obscure term only in the lead instead of the more familiar one it links to?
Because it's the name Bach used, in a way I hesitate to use one he didn't know. The same question came up in the GA review. - open for discussion. --GA
  • Gospel—capitalised throughout, should be lower case, especially since you are not linking to a specific gospel,
it's the same Gospel, the prescribed for that Sunday, every time, just the link not repeated every time. - in the FA mentioned above, it's Gospel. open ... --GA
  • co-reigning Dukes—lc dukes
The people are linked, where duke is linked. Really repeat? --GA
  • Pentecost. —link
done, but then Easter also. --GA
  • Mostly written based upon texts by the court poet—"written" is redundant
replaced by "inspired", to hint at their cordial collaboration --GA
  • arrested him in prison for disobedience. —so he was actually in prison when he was arrested? Seems odd
lacking the proper term, dropped "prison" for now, - help please, I am not so familiar with prison as some of my DYK may make believe ;) --GA
  • The court was Calvinist, —link
done --GA
  • therefore most of Bach's work from this period was mostly secular, —most...mostly
done --GA
  • He later parodied some of them to church cantatas—to me "parodied" conveys humorous intent, which doesn't quite seem right
it's a term frequently used in Baroque music, and nothing negative or humorous about it, - now a link supplied that should explain --GA
  • on an occasion even two candidates—doesn't make sense
tried harder, - could be dropped if not good enough --GA
  • which the disciples don't understand—"don't" is too informal
right, thank you --GA
  • My Jesus, draw me after You—capitalised "You" looks very odd, even if technically correct
Its quoted from the source. --GA
  • musicologist—overworked in this section
You are right. Born in a discussion where a person without an article was simply named, and some description requested to be added. What can we do, if several are given the chance for a summary? - I dropped two of four. --GA
Thank you for diligent reading and good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Support and one follow up OK, I'm happy enough with most of your answers to support now, still not happy about capitalised "Dukes". I understand that a named duke(s), like Duke of Edinburgh or Dukes of Lancaster, is capped, but here it's just used as plural with no qualifying name, so surely lower cased? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
query from WereSpielChequers not my subject area, so mostly my comments are about how this reads to a general reader. I think that as regards prose it is pretty much at FA standard, but have some nitpicks, apologies if this is just a display of my total ignorance of the subject:
  • since the best could ot be obtained, I'm pretty sure this is translation or transcription error and therefore ot should be not?
you are right, typo fixed --GA
  • You mention that one part of his career was in a Calvinist court, but perhaps to give context there should be some mention that the rest of his career was presumably in Roman Catholic parts of Germany?
Surprised, I confess. With my bias, I thought everybody knew that Luther was about as Lutheran as Luther himself. Introduced the term in the section on Leipzig. Should it be mentioned earlier? --GA
Ah that makes more sense, I have just learned a little more about Lutheranism. ϢereSpielChequers 20:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "saw more possibilities for a future academic career of his sons in Leipzig:" I'm not quite sure of the meaning here, especially as the quote refers to studies rather than career, and don't think of his sons is the best way to put this.
you are right, fixed --GA
  • "Of all candidates, Bach was the only one without a university education." Do we know that? Or do we know that he was the only one of the evaluated candidates not to have a university education? Would Bach was the only one of the seven without a university education. be better?
I will have to check, - I think "of the candidates evaluated" is meant by the source, but this would include Telemann as #8. --GA
  • Graupner's performance took place on the last Sunday after Epiphany, 17 January 1723. Two days before the event already, the town council agreed to offer him the position. seems inelegant to me. What do you think of Graupner's performance took place on the last Sunday after Epiphany, 17 January 1723. This was two days after the town council had agreed to offer him the position.
Well, I am not yet convinced that is better. Try to find something to express that the official date was the 17th, but that they didn't wait to make him an offer, leaving the official test as just a formality. Open for better wording --GA
  • There is a section on recordings, but if the sources cover this I would have thought it worthwhile to have some mention on ongoing use of the work. Excuse my ignorance, but the sort of questions that this raises for me include: Has it been continual fashion since or has it gone through periods of disuse? Is it widely used within German Catholicism, Catholicism generally or has it spread to other branches of Christianity such as Anglicanism? Or even beyond to secular use?
Two topics, recordings and perception, legacy or something like this. Recordings: the recordings came in a standard of listing when I met the topic, see for example BWV 172, - this is the first article with a table, thanks to Tim. Should the source (bach-cantatas) be mentioned? - The other: this is the same as for most cantatas, nothing special for this one: the composer's works fell out of fashion soon after his death. It was the 1950s, then again the movement to revive original Baroque sound in the 1970s which let people discover them again, mostly secular. Yes, Thomaskirche still offers them in services, other churches occasionally do a cantata service. --GA
I made the links consistent, - the best/shortest description for the purpose of this article I think is in Baroque instruments. Open --GA

ϢereSpielChequers 10:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for excellent questions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I looked at just the lead section, and found nothing to change. Good work.

  • I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with how we generally deal with acronyms such as BWV in music articles (and yes, I know what Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis means). The custom at FAC is to either explain or spell out acronyms or provide a footnote, unless just about everyone will already know what they mean. For instance, you might stick a footnote on the first or second occurrence of BWV and say simply "BWV numbers (Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis) are used to catalogue Bach's works".
  • If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! BWV: until recently, BWV had a link, - then Finnusertop pointed out that link and bolding should not appear together. BWV 22 is a redirect. BWV is prominently linked to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis in the infobox. Spelling it out or explaining it would be a bit like spelling out United States (or explaining US), or Köchel-Verzeichnis. The other FA BWV 172 has none of that, but I admit that it still had the link when it was TFA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This would be a good case to ignore all rules in service to the reader, then - not all look at the infobox. Most English-speaking people know what US is, BWV not so much. Either linking or a footnote are good options. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I tried a footnote, not so happy about separating "BWV" from the number though. --GA
It comes after the BWV 22, now, and it looks fine. - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Lead image should use upright scaling instead of fixed size
    • I defined no size now. How would I do "upright scaling"? I don't like the image smaller than the title and the captio, but would not know how to achieve it. --GA
      • The defaults look fine to me. The problem with fixed size, Gerda, is that if someone has their prefs set for something other than the default (which is 180px I think), the results can be really odd-looking if, for example, someone sets their prefs for 300px because they have low vision (or, for that matter, if they hate images and set their prefs at 100px, then same problem). So, if you want to make an image larger or smaller than usual (for any reason), "upright=1.5" (to make it 1.5 times larger) or "upright=0.8" (to make it 80% of full size) or something will cause it to scale appropriately no matter what browser or prefs are set. (For example, I did this at Rosie_Napravnik#Career to make the photo of the horse and rider look bigger. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Thomaskirche-1885.png: when did Kutschera make his engraving? Also, should include full source details instead of just a GBooks link
  • File:Leipzig_Nikolaikirche_um_1850.jpg: can you clarify the licensing status here? What is the status of the original image?
  • File:Johann_mattheson.jpg needs a US PD tag and Wahl's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I asked for help, nothing where I feel competent. - Thanks for checking! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
      • It's inconceivable that someone who made a painting no later than 1746 was still alive in 1914; so I've applied PD-old-100 to the Mattheson portrait. A date of death is unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll look at the other images and touch back. Montanabw(talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Green tickYThe Nokioaikirche image was created by Ludwig Rohbock (1820-1883), so I added a pd-old-100 tag to it. The person who took the photo of the two-dimensional image clearly didn't understand which tag to include (or, based on the rant at his commons userpage, has an issue with photographs that are faithful reproductions of 2-D works). But either way, I think it's fixed. Montanabw(talk) 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Green tickYThe Thomaskirche image was created by an engraver born in 1830, so I think we are safe with that image being a PD, either PD 100 or at least PD-70+. Montanabw(talk) 02:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC) Montanabw, per the instructions at FAC, too many transcluded templates slow the load time on the page. Could you replace the od and y templates above with text? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Afernand74[edit]

Nice article. I have two minor comments

  • Recordings: I assume that the recordings are not the only ones ever recorded. Explaining your selection criteria may be useful for the casual reader. I will refrain from adding personalised ASIN codes to Amazon. ;-)
  • Sources: I personnaly prefer to separate sources actually cited in the article from generic ones. The generic ones could be listed in the article Bach cantata but why repeat them here? For example, the two following refs do not even specifically mention BMV22:
  • Koster, Jan (2011). "Weimar 1708–1717". Retrieved 16 December 2011.
  • Sartorius, Michael (2012). "Bach's Leipzig / 1725–1750 / The City of Leipzig in pictures". Retrieved 11 March 2013.
Creating a "Further reading" section seems more appropriate imho.

Keep on the good work on Bach, Gerda! ;-)--Alberto Fernández Fernández (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!
  • Recordings: these are 11 of 12 listed on Bach-Cantatas (now referenced), - the 12th would repeat most performers and have more red links for soloists, could easily be added if wanted. Btw, there will we be no more red links in February.
  • I looked at the "extra" sources once more, dropped what I found to include no added information (including Sartorius, nice images but better for the later Leipzig time), used the others as references. Koster is there to reference the history before this cantata, therefore kept, unless you think the political situation in Weimar should be referenced to a different source.
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

  • We link Bach in the lede, but fail to do so on his first mention in the body.
  • The last para of the "Background, Mühlhausen, Weimar and Köthen" section, could do with a "Bach" being removed and a pronoun being put in its place. For example: "In Köthen, Bach found an employer who was an enthusiastic musician himself. The court was Calvinist, therefore Bach's work from this period was mostly secular, including the orchestral suites, the cello suites, the sonatas and partitas for solo violin, and the Brandenburg Concertos. He composed secular cantatas for the court for occasions such as New Year's Day and the prince's birthday, including Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a. He later parodied some of them to church cantatas without major changes, for example Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134
  • "Bach was interested, because he saw more possibilities for future academic studies of his sons in Leipzig" -- Not sure the comma is needed after "interested".
  • "By August, the town council had already chosen Georg Philipp Telemann as Kuhnau's successor, but he declined in November. In a council meeting on 23 November 1722..." I would give 1722 after August instead seeing as it is a new paragraph. We could then assume chrono order using that year from there.
  • "Bach and Graupner seem to have been the preferred candidates at this point..." -- Seemed to whom? Watch for POV here.

That's it. Great stuff Gerda, and nice to see you at FAC again! CassiantoTalk 20:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

A Handful of Dust[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This is Evelyn Waugh's fourth novel, a relatively early work (he was just 30 when he wrote it) yet by some accounts his best. His personal circumstances were miserable at the time, and some of the book reflects this. In places the phrasing is dated and awkward, even embarrassing to present-day ears, but generally the wit and imagination are undiminished. I hope a few readers of the article will be minded to read the book, or at least watch the film (available in its entirety on YouTube). Thanks to loyal peer reviewers, as always up to the task. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the phalanx of peer reviewers, and my few and minor points were dealt with most satisfactorily then. Waugh is not a writer I generally enjoy, and it says much for BB's article that I was moved to get the novel off my shelves and dip in again. A fine article, comprehensive, balanced, clear, beautifully written, and as well illustrated as one could ask for in the circs. FA all the way, in my judgment. Tim riley talk 22:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your peer review, your encouragement and your support here.
  • Image review:

Support most interesting, though Waugh is not my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks – and for the very helpful peer review that preceded this FAC. Your willingness to review outside your comfort zone is much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN1 should italicize ODNB
  • I don't think it should – this is the online ODNB, not the printed edition. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • FN6: which Stannard?
  • Slater ref duplicates surname and formats editor notation differently than for other books
  • FN41: italicization is reversed
  • Some Waugh short cites use commas, others colons. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Except for the point noted, all these are fixed. Thanks for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment by Curly Turkey[edit]

  • The infobox seems to give info restricted to the first edition (number of pages, etc, but tells us the Media type was Print (Hardback & Paperback). The body tells us a paperback edition didn't appear until 1951. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pub year of paperback version added Brianboulton (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I think there's no need to mention anything other than the first edition. Books tend to be re-released in a wide variety of formats—paperback, ebook, audiobook—but the infobox is not the place to note them all.—indopug (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

I looked at just the lead section and fixed a comma; feel free to revert, as always.

  • "unofficial "best 20th-Century novels" lists": I'm hesitant to fiddle with capitalization inside quote marks, but that doesn't look right to me.
  • If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. The comma you added is I believe superfluous, in BritEng at least, so I've removed it. I have rephrased the "best 20th century novels" bit and removed the capitals. Any more comments? Let's see if the thing gets promoted, before you think of adding the lead to your no doubt excessive watchlist! Brianboulton (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That's all I've got, Brian, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Support; I was a previously a peer reviewer, and had my small concerns happily dealt with there. Two subsequent minor tweaks from me, but the article is certainly better for the previous comments and improvements since PR. A further read through shows nothing to stop me supporting such an excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. Looked very strong from first glance, though I must admit I knew nothing of the subject. Read through with the intent of noting any quibbles and made a few very minor, mostly cosmetic, changes. This clearly meets the FA standards in my opinion. Really excellent work. Thank you, Brian, for the enlightening read. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and kind words. I am pleased that you found the article interesting – I am sure that, dated though the prose sometimes is (embarrassingly so in a few cases), you would enjoy the nove. Some day, perhaps. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if anyone doesn't know what this article is about, based from the name alone, so I'll forego a description. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AmericanLemming[edit]

@AmericanLemming: I'm renominating this now, though I assume you'll be busy until later in the month, so no worries. I've made this section for you in advance. Face-smile.svg Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I quickly went through the Interactions subsection to give you some new comments to work with, but I need a few days to reread the first half of the article, both to refamiliarize myself with the material and tweak the prose further if need be. I also need to look at the "Overdose" section again and take a look at the changes you've made in response to my comments. Reviewing this is priority number one for my Christmas break, so I should be able to finish it before classes start up again. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead through Side effects Reading through these first few sections again I made a few tweaks to the prose, but I have a lot fewer comments than I did the first time around. Rather than 30-40 I've only got five. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Lead: “Amphetamine is also used as a performance and cognitive enhancer” So while using it as “a performance and cognitive enhancer” is almost always illegal, such use is not considered recreational?

That is, are “illegal drug use” and “recreational drug use” usually but not always synonymous?

  • Lead: “which includes prominent substances such as bupropion, cathinone, MDMA (ecstasy), and methamphetamine.” Can all these compounds be synthesized from amphetamine and/or are they commonly synthesized from amphetamine? We might want to mention that.
  • Lead: “Unlike methamphetamine, amphetamine's salts lack sufficient volatility to be smoked.” What exactly is the significance of this statement? That is, why is it in the lead? Does it make amphetamine less practical for recreational use than methamphetamine?
  • Medical: “Therapeutic doses of amphetamine improve cortical network efficiency,” as in the mesocorticolimbic pathway?
  • Contradictions: Um, aren’t hypertension and elevated blood pressure the same thing? I ask because the whole “These agencies also state that anyone with…elevated blood pressure, etc.,” makes it sound like there’s some difference between them.

Overdose I just finished going through all of my old comments from this section and looking at your changes and responses. I'm now satisfied with the organization and comprehensiveness of the section, but the prose still needs some tweaking, some of which I can take care of and some of which I'll need to ask you about. I really like the table, by the way; it does a much better job of presenting the same information. Also, I think you should reread the section to make sure I haven't oversimplified anything in my relentless quest to make the article accessible to the general public. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


  • “Inhibitors of the enzymes that metabolize amphetamine…will prolong its elimination half-life” What the clinical significance of having amphetamine in your system longer? Does that make it easier to overdose on it?
  • “increase plasma catecholamines” I know we’re mentioned it in the lead, but adding “(i.e. norepinephrine and dopamine)” after catecholamines may be helpful for the general reader. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jfdwolff[edit]

This is a very good article. Balanced in an area where there's information from numerous domains to compare and weigh. Using every way possible to clarify difficult concepts using notes and tooltips etc.

  • While almost all sections are supported heavily by secondary sources, I still find a number of primary sources in some sections. I found one of these to be over 20 years old (e.g. Imperato et al 1993). They may not have been reproduced or included in the current paradigm.
  • A number of references currently contains a message that the "chapter" parameter is being ignored. Can this be fixed?

I will see if any other concerns arise from reviews by others (as I cannot claim much expertise in the subject matter) but I have a low threshold for support provided the primary sources concern is addressed. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't bother with doing so - I replaced it with a new review. I don't mind cutting primary sources because any that are included are unnecessary for WP:V, so if any others are a concern, let me know. The few primary sources covering medical content in humans are all coupled to WP:MEDRS-quality reviews, as far as I'm aware. I'm quite pedantic about citing anything medical regarding humans with medical reviews or high-quality pharmacology references. In any case, I replaced it with a new medical review covering preclinical evidence (I assume this means "lab animals", so I kept that phrase). That sentence was just meant to provide context to indicate that dopamine and acetylcholine interactions from amphetamine are not unique to humans.
In the few other cases that I included the primary sources with reviews, I did so because: (1) I found it hard to find the information in the review when re-checking (the review on flavin-containing monooxygenase, where it's in a table instead of the article) or (2) I thought the material was important, but not widely covered in reviews in a relevent context or relevant databases (e.g., the dopamine beta-hydroxylase references). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Edit: Forgot to note, I'm discussing the citation error issue on the CS1 module talkpage. Will probably have them fixed by tomorrow. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Jfdwolff: Everything should be fixed now; let me know if anything is still amiss. Citation errors were really just an error in the module script. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Axl[edit]

  • This is a point that I made at previous FACs: From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 4: "A Cochrane Collaboration review on the treatment of ADHD in children with tic disorders indicated that stimulants in general do not make tics worse, but high doses of dextroamphetamine in such people should be avoided." Should high doses be avoided in children with tic disorders more so than in children without tic disorders? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't realized my previous comment didn't address your concern - I reworded the sentence to how I interpreted what Cochrane was essentially saying: "A Cochrane Collaboration review on the treatment of ADHD in children with tic disorders indicated that stimulants in general do not make tics worse, but high doses of dextroamphetamine could exacerbate tics in such individuals."
If you'd prefer different wording, feel free to edit that line to your liking. I very seldom revert a reviewers changes to an article in the event you're concerned about it. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
No, not in "such individuals", in "some" individuals. Stimulants do not exacerbate tics. *SOME* people may have issues, though. Here are the words from the Cochrane review:
  • To evaluate evidence for this reported phenomenon we searched for clinical trials of medications for ADHD used specifically in children with tic disorders. The trials indicate that a number of stimulant and non-stimulant medications are safe and effective treatments for ADHD symptoms and do not worsen tics. High dose stimulants may transiently worsen tics in some children, and worsening tics may limit dose increases of stimulants in some children, but in the majority of children both tics and ADHD symptoms improve with use of stimulant medications.
And, surprise, that is correct :) "Some" is the correct word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind how the statement is worded, though I think this is worth noting: Cochrane's samples were entirely upon individuals with ADHD and some form of tic disorder, so they technically can't generalize the population outside that group without it producing biased statistical inference (i.e., the samples are nonrespresentative of individuals with ADHD in general with or without tic disorders). That's why I assumed their analysis was always in context of the sample and consequently worded that sentence with "such"; in any event, I actually agree completely that dopaminergic-related movement side effects are not specific to individuals with tic disorders. Anyone can develop abnormal involuntary movements and hypersensitive locomotor responses using dopaminergic stimulants because, as in the nucleus accumbens, dopamine (and hence DA stims like amphetamine) induces nigrostriatal ΔFosB in response to chronic sufficiently high dosing.([6] - epigenetics/pharmacogenomics of involuntary motor activity from chronic high-dose L-dopa therapy) Nigrostriatal ΔFosB overexpression, coupled with high-dose amphetamine/methamphetamine, would necessarily produce abnormal motor function and dysregulated motor responses (e.g., substituted amphetamine induced stereotypies). This may or may not contribute to tics though, depending upon which neural pathways give rise to tic disorders. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 01:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. The current text is fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Contraindications": "It is also contraindicated in people currently experiencing... severe hypertension." The FDA reference states "Moderate to severe hypertension". The Inchem reference just states "hypertension". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
That was probably pruned during previous copyediting - I've cut the word "severe" and left it at hypertension. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I am wary of adding "elevated blood pressure" in parentheses after "hypertension". Hypertension is more than simply elevated blood pressure. Also, elevated blood pressure is subsequently noted as a cautionary feature that should be monitored. (This statement is in line with the references.)
I am inclined to delete the "clarification" of the meaning of hypertension from the text. (I note that the subsequent cautionary features such as bipolar disorder, psychosis and Raynaud's phenomenon do not have associated short definitions.) If you insist that a short definition should be included for hypertension, perhaps change it to "persistent blood pressure"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Deleted it; I don't care for the parenthetical clarification - I only added them in cases where they were requested. In this case, it was redundant anyway. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 09:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The clarification seems to have been changed to "high blood pressure". Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Side effects", subsection "Physical", paragraph 1: "Cardiovascular side effects can include irregular heartbeat (usually an increased heart rate)." Not all arrhythmias are irregular. Indeed atrial fibrillation is the only common arrhythmia that is irregular. I am aware that the linked article, "Cardiac dysrhythmia", states that "irregular heartbeat" is a synonym. The statement is inaccurate. The reference seems to be inaccessible at the moment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I tweaked this as such. Let me know if that works. Wasn't sure how you wanted it. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 09:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
No! I recommend "cardiac dysrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm)." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I've changed it to "abnormal heart rhythm". I feel somewhat responsible for the inaccurate parenthetical explanations because I'm the one who requested and/or added them. Per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, I've been trying to explain technical terms, here, since the article's unintelligibiilty to the general reader was one of the main reasons it wasn't promoted before. At the same time, we don't want to oversimplify things, either. AmericanLemming (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Abductive[edit]

  • I feel that the lead is a bit overlong.
  • The lead certainly is too technical, and jumps around between the historical, medical, chemical, abuse, and legal aspects of the topic. I'll break this down by coding each sentence or part of sentence: 1st paragraph; m,hc,c,c,m,ma,la. Second paragraph; h,hm,m,m,m. 3rd; a,am,am,a. 4th; c,ca,m,c. Abductive (reasoning) 04:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Maurice Richard[edit]

Nominator(s): Resolute 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Maurice Richard is one of hockey's greatest legends. The first player in NHL history to score 50 goals in one season and the first to reach 500 for his career. An eight time Stanley Cup champion, and a member of both the Canadian Sports and Hockey Halls of Fame. He is also a cultural icon across the country, but primarily in Quebec where his on-ice outburst and subsequent suspension in 1955 precipitated the Richard Riot, today regarded as a violent manifestation of Francophone Quebec's dissatisfaction with its place in Anglophone Canada. Though apolitical himself, Richard's legacy was cemented when he was made the subject of Roch Carrier's legendary short story, The Hockey Sweater.

I was asked several months ago to try and expand Henri Richard's article from a poor stub into something better - and at some point I still will - but I was instead inspired to write about Henri's famous brother. It reached GA status in May and I have run periodic copyedits since to tighten the prose. I believe it is now FA quality, and I hope the community will agree. Cheers! Resolute 00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Richard was one of my childhood heroes. The least I can do is review this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Maurice richard profile.jpg - How do we know that this is PD, if the date is unknown? If it's from 1950, then it's not expired. Also, what's the US copyright on this image?
    • The Library and Archives Canada specifically notes that the copyright is expired. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I noticed that. I'd mark "Before 1949" if then, so the question doesn't have to be asked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I could, but that would be a guess. It may be that the creator died in the early 50s, or that the creator explicitly released it PD when it was donated to LAC.
  • File:Maurice Richard 1945.jpg - How does this meet URAA criteria #2? You'd need to know where it was first published for that
    • The image would have fallen into the public domain in Canada on the URAA date. I don't believe URAA applies to it. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
      • That's criteria 3. What about criteria 2? Unless you know the original publication, or at least an early publication, then it would be difficult to confirm. One way would be to see if copyright was registered in the US (doubtful, but possible) in the year the image was photographed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The online records extend only as far back as 1978, and there is no record from that date forward. Same with the image below. Resolute 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Maurice Richard and Toe Blake.jpg - This too. To know if it meets URAA criteria two, we need to know where it was first published (i.e. the publication).
    • Same as above. The image was already PD in Canada on the URAA date. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Henry and richard.jpg needs to be downsampled to meet the NFCC.
    • Will do. Is there any specific resolution limit, or is this arbitrary? The FUR should be improved, I notice, and I will do that also. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
      • WP:IMAGERES recommends 100k pixels maximum (which for this file would be would be a bit smaller), though the current 300 wide is acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Richard sculpture.JPG should note the copyright of the statue as well ({{FoP-Canada}} on Commons)
    • Will do. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Hhof maurice richard.jpg - Is this trophy given to the teams (like the Stanley Cup) or does it stay put? That'll affect if it meets the FoP criteria or not.
    • All of these trophies are on permanent public display at the HHOF, though they (or copies of same) do travel periodically. But again, always maintained as public exhibits. I believe it easily meets Canadian FOP requirements. Resolute 21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
      • If they are on "permanent" (for the life of the object) public display, I agree. This should be okay; the FoP template doesn't mention it having to be outdoors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Maurice Richard jersey.JPG - Fine — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • General comment: A lot of your harv references are broken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Prose comments
    • Is the Pocket Rocket really worth mentioning in the second sentence? I'd push Henri back to the second paragraph, maybe
      • Removed; It was added by another editor after I started this FAC. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Really don't like the lead. It's all his achievements, none of his life. I mean, he was more than just his legacy. You don't mention how he rose up from poverty, or how he was fairly injury prone... and his famous temper is couched in a much more discrete term ("intense")
      • Modified. Resolute 01:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • In one league, he led his team to three consecutive championships and scored 133 of his team's 144 goals in the 1938–39 season. - which team?
      • Sources don't say. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • and resulted in his famously being named first, second and third star of the game. - what resulted in this?
      • Clarified? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • after he criticized Campbell in a weekly newspaper column with his byline. - is "with his byline" really necessary here?
      • See discussion below with Issacl. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • If it's ghostwritten, is it necessarily him criticizing Campbell? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
          • The citation says Richard never tried to hide behind his ghost, so it implies he tacitly agreed with the statement. isaacl (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
            • And Campbell certainly took it as Richard's words, thus the $1000 bond. Perhaps our best statement is that Richard "co-wrote" the article? Resolute 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
              • I edited the phrase to call it "his ... column", which I think is sufficiently open-ended to cover the situation (and what the general public would think of a ghostwritten column). Absent additional information on the extent of Richard's involvement with the column, I think it's accurate enough for this context. isaacl (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    • True to his word, - feels like editorializing
      • Modified. I did want to emphasize that Richard followed through on his promise following the riot. I would still like to keep that somehow; is the new text better?
    • the return of his former Punch line teammate, Toe Blake, - don't seem to recall you mentioning that they'd disbanded
      • It is noted in the final paragraph of the 50 goals in 50 games section that Blake was forced to retire due to a leg injury. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that #Playing style should be after the remainder of his biographical information. It is really jolting to switch from Ambassador to style to Ambassador
      • That probably sets up the same problem in reverse. Player to personal to player. I moved the fact that Richard was offered the role of team ambassador to the lead of the Personal life section. Does this look better to you? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Richard was named a vice-president in 1964. - explicitly say that it was one of the team's VPs? Also, anything to link?
      • Done on the first. What are you looking for in terms of a link? Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I was thinking something like President (hockey) or President (sports), but apparently both would be redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Challenge there is that the modern role of team president (or even historical) would not fit what Richard was. He seemed to be a vice-president of nothing in particular, which is why he split with the club fairly quickly. I can't think of any appropriate link for that. Resolute 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • But even if Richard always refused to be seen as a symbol of national affirmation, he is widely considered as one by Quebec's francophone population to this day, and it is still commonly said that Richard was a « Héro malgré lui » («Hero despite his will»). - what's this supposed to be? A direct quote?
      • Again, something added by another user after this FAC began. On top of being unsourced (and which I cannot find such a source online for), I don't like the editorializing style either. Removed for now. Resolute
    • That last paragraph, with Malancon, has some serious weight issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm. It is really a long quote. I think the countering quote added by the same IP that put the commentary above in helps in this regard. (and I was able to verify that one.) Does that help, or should I still cut that Melancon quote down? Otherwise, still considering how to handle the lead, and still planning to look at the copyright status of those images. Thanks! Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
        • I'd trim it a bit. Rocket is a fairly big subject, and the Quebec separatist movement an even bigger one. Giving a single person a whole paragraph would feel undue either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
          • I cut out part of the quote. Hopefully the two passages balance out now. Resolute 01:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright. You still have several harv errors in your references. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "with his byline": I copy edited the text to this wording to keep note that the column was Richard's (albeit ghostwritten), as opposed to a weekly column attributed to a sportswriter (or a staff). I think there is some value to maintain this distinction, but if consensus feels otherwise, the clause can be removed. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That line was added by another editor at some point. On the GA reviewed version, I had written that Richard authored the column. Unfortunately, it also appears that an editor, while well meaning, added some content that degraded the prose in several areas after I started this FAC. That is why Henri Richard is needlessly mentioned in the second sentence. I will have to go clean it up, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Just checking in right now to thank both of you for the comments and reviews. Resolute 23:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I was the one who modified the text regarding the column's authorship, since the source noted that it was ghostwritten, so stating the column was authored by Richard seemed a bit too assertive. I can try to re-edit it again. (The change regarding Henri was not done by me.) isaacl (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't remember, but was Richard still ghostwriting his article at that time? If he was, then noting that it was under his byline would be incorrect. I would rather use a variant of "...that he helped author" unless we are certain he was writing under his own name at that time. I'll have to go back to research the exact status of his article at that point. Resolute 01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the Montreal Gazette article cited, the column was ghostwritten by someone else for Richard, which implies the column had Richard's name on it. I'm not sure what you mean by "was Richard still ghostwriting his article"; there would be no benefit to the reporter or paper to let Richard write anonymously. isaacl (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns is deprecated in {{reflist}} in favour of colwidth
  • Don't use semicolons to create pseudoheadings in References, per MOS:LAYOUT
  • FN19: page formatting
  • Lavigne or Lavinge?
  • No citations to Posen. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


Duplicate citations ids; see [7]

  • Two citations sourced to Ottawa Citizen with a date of 1945. Use |year=1945a to disambiguate per template:Sfn#More_than_one_work_in_a_year which applies here as well.
  • Four citation links with no author or date. #24 accounts for three uses.
  • No author, date 1959.
  • No author, date 1960.
  • No author, date 2000.

Don't worry about the other validation errors: these are known MediaWiki issues. --  Gadget850 talk 15:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There are no authors on those cites because there are no listed authors. They are newspaper cites without bylines. Likewise the publication date on ref 24. There is no listed publication date. The cites are filled out with all available information. As far as two cites being sourced to the Ottawa Citizen in 1945 goes, it seems decidedly odd that {{harvnb}} can't use the fact that they are different dates to create separate anchors, but the year parameter seems to have worked without negatively impacting visible output. Thanks, Resolute 15:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

I was one of those little boys who so disappointed their Canadian fathers—I never followed hockey, or any other sport. To atone for my sins I'm reviewing sports FACs. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.

  • Onésime was a carpenter by trade, and took a job with the Canadian Pacific Railway shortly after Maurice was born.: did he work for CP as a carpenter?
    Yes. Does the current wording not convey that? Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • until he was re-hired: re-hired by CP?
    • Fixed. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • his first child, Huguette,: I assume this is a girl?
    • Modified. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • his daughter's birth weight: I imagine only a minority of likely readers will not realize this is pounds, but it still should be made explicit
    • Fixed. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • and was almost bowing to Richard: what does this mean?
    • Modified. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Montreal's rival fans: meaning Leafs fans?
    • Yes. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Richard via physical abuse: I'm not sure "p
    • Looks like your thought got cut off. I assume you dislike the use of "physical abuse"? Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I think I was trying to say "physical abuse" was an odd choice in the context, associated more with helpless victim-like situations. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • in his weekly newspaper column: Richard had a column?
    • This might be the most problematic half-sentence in my Wikipedia career. This is a rewording from above discussion. @Isaacl: - what do you think of my latest rewording? Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Personally I think just saying it was his weekly column is good enough (according to the article I linked to below, Richard was the source of the material for the column), but your wording is fine, too. I suggest keeping "weekly", but it's not a big issue. isaacl (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Added weekly. Resolute 01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Richard was struck in the head with Hal Laycoe's stick.: I wonder how many 21st-century readers will realize the players had no helmets
    • Probably not many, but I'm not sure a note is necessary given the more vicious nature of the sport at that time is already well introduced. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Do no more harm. Get behind the team in the playoffs. I will take my punishment and come back next year and help the club and the younger players to win the Cup": (a) if the quote ends here, the period should go inside the quotemarks; (b) I assume this was in French; if so, it would be a good idea to include the original (you could throw it into an endnote).
    • Fixed part a. For part b, I don't read French so wouldn't be able to easily find the original quote. The French article doesn't appear to include it. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I've been looking around but haven't found it yet---I did find this, though---it looks like quite a few songs have been written about the riot. The book's in French, but the songs quoted are in English. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • The quote was given in a press conference and spoken in English and French, according to his ghostwriter, Wayne Johnston, who wrote his statement and his column. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, if it was actually delivered in English, then giving a French "translation" would be misleading, so never mind. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It was terrifying".: again, if this quote ends with a period, it should go inside
    • Changed. One of those annoying rules I never quite get. I was always under the impression that the period goes inside if the entire sentence is within the quote, but outside if not. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Is the entire sentence not inside the quote? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • In this case, yes. I was speaking generally to the three times you called it out but put the comment against the wrong example. ;) Resolute 01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Richard was still an active player when Gordie Howe overtook his career record for points.: shoudn't this go in "Playing career" rather than "Playing style"?
    • I put it there because it was part of a discussion of his records and when they were broken. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • owned the "544 / 9 Tavern" in Montreal: might want to make explicit why it was named so
    • Noted. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • He died on May 27, 2000.: no cause of death?
    • Noted. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • We all wore the famous number 9 on our backs".: again, if the quote ends with a period, it should go inside
    • Changed. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Should probably mention the NFB short, as many know the story only through that.
    • Changed, but the Story and the short are contained within the same article at The Hockey Sweater. I'm not sure I like the new wording. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Personally I suggest placing any information about the short in a following sentence, a parenthetical aside, or a footnote, since the current sentence has "Author Carrier" as the subject. While it's not exactly wrong to call him the author of the explanation in the short, it's a bit misleading as it can carry the implication that he had more involvement in the production than I think he did. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • the situation in French Quebec at the time: I wonder if this could be briefly expanded on; the further a person is from Quebec the less likely they are to understand the situation, and many (especially non-Canadians) are unaware of the large anglo minority in Montreal, which was an larger minority before the PQ came to power and caused an anglo rush to other parts of Canada: about a quarter of Montrealers were native English speakers in 1971, now down to less than 15%. I don't expect anything in-depth, but it should be briefly touched on, especially for those readers to whom Quebec equals French. It may be assumed that anti-anglo sentiments were directed at "foreign" places like Ontario.
    • Oooh, I think that might be out of scope for this article, and that paragraph already gives a basic overview. I did modify a statement to avoid implying both that Quebec is uniformly Francophone and the rest of the country uniformly Anglophone. Ultimately, I think the Quiet Revolution article that is linked would be the best place for a reader to go for more information. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps it could be mentioned in passing somewhere that Montreal had a large anglo minority? I don't expect this article to delve into the whole sticky situation, but since the article brings it up, a tad more context would be good, if at the very least to proactively turn readers away from "obvious" assumptions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • In the context of this article, that really feels like a non sequitur. Montreal's Anglophone minority isn't specifically discussed in relation to either the riot at the time or it's legacy. I am open to suggestions on a statement you think might work, however. Resolute 01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Like I said, I don't want to see the article dive into a complicated tangent, but the subject should be breached with care. For instance, take a look at this, which points out that the Candiens were owned by anglos and that most of the players trying to take him out of the game were anglos. Of course, it goes into much more detail on the subject than this article should, but I do think it's important context. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Team ownership I don't believe is as much an issue as team management at the GM and coaching level. But the Canadiens have assiduously kept themselves neutral with respect to the language issue, and so I don't believe the owner's heritage needs to be discussed. isaacl (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
              • The authors of the book I linked to seem to disagree. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Regarding the passage on the club being ruled by anglophones, Selke, Blake, Irvin, etc. were anglophones. Regarding the later passage on the team being owned by anglophones, as the text notes, this is prior to Richard's career; during his playing time, the team had francophone ownership. isaacl (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, I don't think I'm making my point clear. To those who don't know the cultural background (which includes large numbers of Canadians) some statements are apt to be misinterpreted: that he played with "English boys" could, for instance, come off as a "some of my best friends are black" sort of thing. The briefest (but carefully worded) gloss of what kind of city Montreal was could avoid that kind of thing. You're reading this as someone who knows these things and takes them for granted. Wikipedia articles can't assume readers will have your knowledge. Sources such as this one take time out to give the language background of Montreal to provide a backdrop to the riot. [ Here's a bit on the Canadiens (and Richard) feeling resentful at not getting French-speaking coaches—if you didn't know there was a large English minority in Montreal, the idea that the coaches would speak only English seems bizarre. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • I think you may be reading more into my comments that I'm saying. I was offering a view specifically regarding expanding on the background of team ownership, which doesn't factor in with questions of Richard's teammates. I have not weighed in on whether or not additional information regarding the background of the team coaches ought to be included. Specifically regarding your point on English-speaking coaches, it's not because of the city's linguistic composition, but because of the relative number of anglophones playing hockey. isaacl (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
                      • The thing is, I'm not trying to make any sort of poitn at all about coaches. The point I'm trying to make is that readers will make assumptions about Montreal being a "French" city, and that when language issues arise in the article they will therefore be coloured by that assumption. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
                        • My comments were specifically regarding ownership, where I do not believe there are any assumptions being made that would be dispelled by examining the linguistic background of the owners. Setting aside the question of whether or not the examples you've given so far are applicable, I think that an understanding of the two cultures in Montreal is helpful in understanding the backdrop in which the Canadiens exist, but I'm not sure to what extent it is necessary to expand on this within the article. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's a source that claims: "Since the NHL was run by Anglophones, and Richard had experienced tremendous prejudice and class hatred, he eventually became quite expressive about the rights of French Quebecers." If this statement's true, it seems like a pretty important detail missing from the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Hmm. The CBC Archive story on the riot directly contradicts that by using statements from Richard himself, and none of the other sources I have read indicate that he was ever "quite expressive about the rights of French Quebecers" in public. He was expressive about how the English establishment in the NHL treated English players vs. French, but that is already noted with both the quote box and first paragraph in the riot section. Without some other sources to back that up, I'm worried that is a fringe view - possibly conflating Richard's statements in the context of the NHL to a wider view that is not necessarily supported. Resolute 15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Again, I never followed hockey so feel free to laugh if this is inappropriate, but I would've assumed there'd be some mention of the Original Six era in the article.
    • I can't really pick out where it would be an appropriate fit. Richard's career was never mentioned in the context of the Original Six, and even though the majority of it was during that era, his first few seasons were prior to it. Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Hahahahaha! Actually, seriously, thanks for the review! I will look to address these later today. Resolute 15:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Responded. Thanks again for the review! Resolute 01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Lawrence Wetherby[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

After a long absence from FAC, due in part to the addition of a second child to our family, I've decided to resume pursuit of a Governors of Kentucky featured topic with this nomination. (Three more GAs need to attain FA status for a featured topic; four after next year's gubernatorial election.) Although it has been a while since I've worked on the article – a recent copyedit notwithstanding – I still have access to the sources and believe this article provides a comprehensive overview of Wetherby's life. I will try to address any concerns promptly, although the time I can devote to editing is much more uneven than it used to be. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment Welcome back! - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope you'll have a chance to review at some point. You always have good comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments, leaning toward support.

  • No better/other pictures? At least on my display, the infobox picture is a bit out of focus. I'm not a huge fan of adding pictures just for window dressing, but maybe there are a couple other illustrations of things in the article we could dig up, if no other photos of Wetherby are available.
  • Not that I'm aware of, unfortunately. Until very recently, the article used his official gubernatorial portrait under a fair use rationale. Recently, I learned of the {{PD-US-no-notice}} template – and its associated copyright implications, obviously – and scoured the Kentucky Virtual Library for a free alternative for Wetherby, among others. This was the best I found, which isn't saying much, but at least it's free. For other images we could use in the article, my KYVL search also turned up freebies of Earle C. Clements and Bert T. Combs, while we already had a good quality photos of Happy Chandler and Alben Barkley. There's also an aerial shot of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant that opened during Wetherby's administration and is mentioned in the article. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Please run the External Links tool and update/post archive links as needed. I show three dead links.
  • Do we need the citation in the lead? I feel like the sentence is not likely to be challenged, unless someone asked you to put it there.
  • No one asked me to put it there. I just always try to cite almost everything I add. Removed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit puzzled by the link to Term limits in the United States in the lead, since the article states Kentucky has a two-term limit. Do they count partial terms?
  • No. The state constitution was amended in 1992 to allow governors to succeed themselves once. It had been a one-term limit since the state's second constitution was ratified in 1799. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Chandler did not support Wetherby's 1956 bid to succeed Democrat Alben Barkley in the Senate, which contributed to his loss..." This reads awkwardly to me. I think it's the "Chandler did not support ... which contributed" construction. Maybe "Chandler's failure to support ... contributed"?
  • Beginning a section with "Also in 1943" was jarring. Maybe a matter of opinion.
  • Probably the wording came first and the section break later, without a corresponding copyedit. Fixed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of his administration, he increased funding to education by $20 million." This doesn't mean as much without the context. $20 million on top of what?
  • The source only says it was an increase of $20 million over what it had been in 1950. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "support peaceful implementation of the Supreme Court's school desegregation order in the case of Brown v. Board of Education" The wording is strange here. Can we revise?
  • It doesn't seem that strange to me, but I've changed it to "to peacefully implement desegregation as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education". Is that better? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "He failed in his efforts to amend the state's constitution to allow the governor to succeed himself in office." This sentence seems to offer some explanation of the statement in the lead that he was limited to one term.. I'm assuming later on Kentucky amended the constitution to allow two consecutive terms? Or is the linked article incorrect?

Looking good overall. --Laser brain (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Support, everything looks good and my comments have been addressed. I haven't looked too hard at source formatting but I'll speak up if I see anything. --Laser brain (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for Methodism?
    • Can't remember where I originally found it, but I've found and added a new cite. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Chandler's charges may have been inaccurate, but they were effective; he defeated Combs in the primary and went on to win the general election" - not sure we can draw that conclusion without OR, the charges are not the only possible reason for his victory
    • Removed the bit about them being effective. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • How are you ordering the Harrison refs?
    • By book title. The Kentucky Encyclopedia is ordered on 'K'; A New History of Kentucky is ordered on 'N'; Western Kentucky University is ordered on 'W'. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how you present the editors of larger works - first name or last name first
  • Compare FNs 1, 5 and 41
  • "Kleber in 'As Luck Would Have It'" isn't correct - he wrote that article
    • Yes. I'm using "in" to mean "in which source" to disambiguate between multiple sources by the same author. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • FN14: which Harrison?
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer[edit]

Nominator(s): Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This is about one of the most aggressive and hard to treat cancers. Improving the article has been one of the targets of Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK. I'm very grateful to all the many editors who have contributed. The article has had a thorough peer review, with several editors editing as well as commenting. The article has also been reviewed internally at Cancer Research UK. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Review by SandyGeorgia[edit]

Great to see you here, John! I am watchlisting, and will review, but not today, and perhaps not tomorrow. Right off the bat, though, I am seeing several incomplete citations; could you run through and make sure all of your citations are complete and in a consistent format? Your PMID sources seem consistent, but some others are incomplete. Also, could you explain minor deviations from MEDMOS suggested sections? More later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of citation consistency moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Citation consistency and some MOS issues are mostly cleaned up, and I've left some prose and sourcing discussion on article talk.[8] Please ping me for more thorough review when some of that has been processed. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from an ip[edit]

I don't to make any review comments on sections I've worked on, but I think it's probably ok to help out elsewhere.

  • In the "Risk factors" section:
    Some studies have found links with diets high in red meat, processed meat,[35] and sugar-sweetened drinks (soft drinks).[36] The abstract of ref. 36 concludes "a slight correlation between risk of pancreatic cancer and [carbonated soft drinks] consumption has been found." Personally I don't think "a slight correlation" (whatever that may be) would provide strong enough causal evidence to deserve this mention. According to PMID 22194529 (technically, another potential MEDRS), "Although we were only able to examine a modest intake of [carbonated soft drinks], there was a suggestive and slightly positive association for their intakes which reached statistical significance in certain subgroups of participants (e.g., nondiabetics, nondrinkers of alcohol)." [9] Hmm, I'd cut it...
    Fwiw, I'd also perhaps avoid starting the sentence with the phrase "Some studies have..." as this can give an impression of cherry picking of primary studies, whereas the evidence for red and processed meats is actually sourced to a meta-analysis (ref. 35), albeit of observational studies. (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've cut the soft drinks, although they did actually show up in my survey of advice from NCI, CRUK, ACS et al, which was why they were there. The meta-analysis shows that "some studies have...". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't have much to say but it's in regards to the same section as what just commented on so I'll just piggyback off them:
      • "though see the sections on obesity and alcohol" should probably be cut – there is no (longer?) a section on obesity and the section on alcohol is literally a sentence away.
Yes, rewritten, pending including source just below. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • PMID 24403441, a systematic review on nutrition and pancreatic cancer, seems like a useful source for this section. There are a lot of conclusions about particular foods that are drawn from observational studies, so lets skip ahead briefly to the conclusion: "There is an abundance of evidence in the literature on the role of nutrition in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Often the evidence is inconclusive due to confounding factors...The lack of large randomized control trials makes it harder to establish causative associations for various nutrient types. [list of associations follow]."
    • Good luck! NW (Talk) 22:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Classification" section basically provides information on histological types, without really summarizing the clinical classification in terms of grading and staging etc, which as usual in Wikipedia disease articles is located (usefully, imo) under "Diagnosis". Broadly per the spirit of a helpful discussion at Cancer Research UK on the fringes of Wikimania and subsequent proposals at MEDMOS, including this one, I think it would be both more appropriate and more reader-friendly to title the section as "Types". As I feel that the heading "Classification" may needlessly be a source of discouragement to our readers – this is the opening section after the lead - I've boldly implemented the suggestion I made at PR... (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Way out of my comfort zone (and makes me queasy), but let's see if I can make it through. I'm only looking at the prose, and through the eyes of a (very) non-subject expert.
  • I see a mix of serial and non-serial commas
  • One to two in every hundred cases of pancreatic cancer: there can't be 1 1/2 cases out of a batch of a hundred, so perhaps this would be better as "one to two per cent of"
It's been changed from that for reasons of accessibility; %s are less widely understood than one might think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A smoker's chances of developing the disease are reduced if they cease smoking: I personally think the singular they should be freed from the closet, but I thought I'd point it out just in case this wasn't intended.
No, out and proud. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Treatment options are partly based on the cancer stage.: meaning they are decided based on the cancer stage?
Yes, both of those, which seem slightly different but valid statements to me. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • the top three vary by gender, including breast cancer for women and prostate cancer for men: I wonder if this should be in the article, as it's US-specific
It's in a note (or should be) & that bit is certainly not US-specific. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • the 5-year survival rate rises about 20%: rises to or by 20%?
"to", done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • signet ring cell carcinomas: I don't think "signet ring" is linking where you intended
No indeed, someone had changed it. Sorted Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

* ("invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term): are "invasive" or "ductal" carry any meaning?

Yes, the ones you'd expect: invasive because cancer (and a very agressive one) and arising in the ducts. Meaning is not really the issue, it's a question of the variable names used. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This has now been rephrased somewhat. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • endocrine cancers (see next section): perhaps "(see the [[#Endocine|Endocrine section]])" in case someone rearranges sections (say, by alphabetizing them)
Anything is possible, but they are more likely to rename them, messing up the link, aren't they? I thought such links were discouraged. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You can avoid having the links break by using {{anchor}}. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
See Sandy Georgia on her Talk review complaining about "bouncing the reader around". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Signs and symptoms[edit]
  • This is one of the main reasons for the generally poor survival rates. Exceptions to this are the functioning PanNETs, whose over-production of hormones is likely to give a range of symptoms according to the type.: is this supposed to share an inline cite with the previous statement?
No, needs another. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In the UK, about half of new cases: is this comparable to other countries?
I don't have comparative figures for anywhere, which may not exist, but it should be fairly comparable for developed countries, perhaps on the high side; probably rather more so than US figures which are endlessly given in these articles without arousing any comment, and are often also at the extremes for the developed world. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Up to two-thirds of people have abdominal pain, < !-- Wolgang 341 cites 2007 study that says "nearly 75%" -- >: "nearly 75%" is more than two-thirds---what's the story here?
Refined per the source to "In up to two-thirds of people abdominal pain is the main symptom" which probably accounts for the difference, though actually such statistics do jump around between different studies. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Risk factors[edit]
  • CDKN2A is a disambiguation page
Yes, though I doubt that it should be (is anybody familiar enough to confirm?). Linked to p16 Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There was another one, fixed: [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There a commented-out bit on gingivitis. What's the story?
From the old version, but most main sources don't mention. I should cut. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This and partial gastrectomy now removed,; noted on talk at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Risk_factors_removed. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • While the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established ... the majority of studies have found no association: the association is well established, yet the majority of studies find no association?
2 diseases: "While the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established, considerable research has failed to firmly establish alcohol consumption as a risk factor for pancreatic cancer." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Diagnosis & Staging[edit]
  • < !-- Yes, refs needed; I know; Wolfgang I think -- >: so you plan to deal with this? The following paragraph lacks cites, too.
  • Pancreatic cancer is usually staged using a CT scan.: also uncited
Done, but also moved down Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (e.g. cholangiocarcinoma) and some stomach cancers; thus, it may not always be possible to be certain that a tumor found in the pancreas arose from it.: where should the closing parenthesis fall? Also, lacking a cite
Changed. Re the ref, I have implicit ones, & I'm ptetty sure this is correct, but I don't have a ref now I can use. Does anyone? The point is worth keeping I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break---I've got a cold that's making it hard to concentrate on this. If I don't return, ping me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Curly Turkey, feedback from someone who is "out of their comfort zone" is a good thing! Suppose your long-lost Aunt Mabel is diagnosed with Pancratic cancer tomorrow? You, as a layperson, should be able to get from this article info you seek. Layperson review is desirable ... so please keep going! (Since you've inquired many times at WT:FAC about how to manage a review, see my section above as a sample of how to use article talk to shorten very long FACs :) I hope you're feeling better soon. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I was actually over it by Friday but neglected to return. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • use of CT scans for other reasons are not all treated: because it's decided they don't need to be?
Yes, the surgery is still usually major, with its own risks, and as mentioned elsewhere, the criteria for choosing to intervene are not fully established. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • three types of precancerous lesion are recognized.: The "first" and "last" are enumerated—you might want to do the same with the second for consistency and ease of skimming
Done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • neoplasia. These are: "neoplasia" is plural?
Yes, for neoplasm. There's a neoplasms I need to lose too. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Neoplasia in general and intraepithelial neoplasia in particular are definitely singular. And there's nothing wrong with neoplasm. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
hmmm. Neoplasia just goes to neoplasm, but on further investigation refers to the process of formation of neoplasms, or the condition of having one (or more). And neoplasms is the correct plural it seems. Neoplasm doesn't really explain this very well. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (the so-called "Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4"): this aside seems more confusing than helpful at this scope
  • < !-- Ryan 25% risk?? -- >: is this going to be dealt with?
  • Taking a daily low-dose aspirin regimen for more than five years may decrease the risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ductal pancreatic cancer) by as much as 75%.: I might append this to the previous paragraph
Done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Gemcitabine is administered intravenously on a weekly basis.: uncited
Removed, too close to dosage info which we don't do. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Treatment of pancreatic endocrine tumors, including the less common malignant tumors, may include a number of approaches. Watchful waiting of small tumors identified incidentally, for example on a CT scan performed for other purposes, may not ultimately need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear. This is mainly because the risk of surgery far outweighs the overall risk of aggressiveness for small tumours.: uncited
  • If the tumor is not amenable to surgical removal and is causing symptoms by secreting functional hormones, targeted medication for PanNETs can be effective, both in reducing symptoms and slowing the progression of the disease. These are covered in more detail in the relevant section of the main article on neuroendocrine tumors.: uncited
  • Radiation therapy is occasionally used if there is pain due to anatomic extension, such as metastasis to bone. Radiolabeled hormone: some PanNETs absorb a hormone called norepinephrine and these may respond to nuclear medicine medication, radiolabeled MIBG therapy (or, experimentally, other hormones), given intravenously. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation, and hepatic artery embolization may also be used.: uncited
Now cited, and indeed we have a new article for hepatic artery embolization from User:FeatherPluma. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-colon by the time I got to it. But the 5 commas after nearly bust some form of record: "... therapy, such as iobenguane (I131-MIBG), or, experimentally, other hormones, given intravenously." so I've rejigged. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • although the outlook greatly varies according to the type.: uncited
  • <! -- Sp p27, but Table 12 shows the much better uterine rates have been flat -- >: I don't know what this means, but will it be dealt with?
  • Deaths from pancreatic cancer have changed little over time.: meaning the proportion of deaths?
  • over the course of their lifetime is very low": how is this punctuated in the original?
?That's a cut n' paste quotation - see the page. There is a missing word "cancer" however", which I'll point out to them. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Missing word added on the site & the note here. Is there a remaining issue here? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • risk for African Americans is over 50% greater than for whites: I'd expect "black" to be paired with "white", or "African American" with "caucasian" (or whatever the current accepted terms are).
I don't like saying blacks, which even with the context of a US para risks suggesting this is also true for Africans, which it isn't. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm ... there's a White American article, and it distinguishes "whites" from "caucasians". Is this a distinction that plays a role here? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Surely we should take no account of WP articles on racial groups...? I certainly wouldn't expect to see "Caucasian" paired with "African American" myself; I don't think it's a respectable term these days, used for whites. SEER, who produce the US figures, report on "whites, blacks, Asian/Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Natives (footnote here), and Hispanics (who they note are "not mutually exclusive from" the other groups. Race and ethnicity in the United States Census has more on this, though the census categories jump around like anything between censuses, and are not directly comparable, which I expect SEER tries to minimize. But the main thing is to avoid at all costs giving the impression that African Americans (generally with up to 40% white genetics I believe) will have a similar risk profile to global "black" figures. Typically African people have lower cancer risks because they have very different lifestyle factors and (yet) live less long. I'll link to White American, but am against changing African American, to which "Black American" unsurprisingly redirects. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Officially, in the US: "“Black or African American” refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “Black, African Am., or Negro” or reported entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian." (in the 2010 US census) Page 3 here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pancreatic cancer is the tenth most common cancer in the UK (around 8,800 people were diagnosed with the disease in 2011), and it is the fifth most common cause of cancer death (around 8,700 people died in 2012).: seems to jump out of nowhere---perhaps merge with the other UK rates immediately above?
The one UK figure above is risk, in a bit on risk. I'll see if the whole section can be better arranged, but the flow is fairly logical. No-one ever complains about US figures seeming "to jump out of nowhere", though they often do. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • but the person only survived: or "patient"? "the person" could be the surgeon (I'd've just changed it to "patient", but I wnat to make sure that's the right word)
We don't like using "patient" so no doubt someone will change it back before I get to it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, then it needs to be otherwise reworded to avoid ambiguity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
How is it ambiguous? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"the person" could be Codivilla. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
He couldn't be really. Maybe it's ok to use "patient" when referring to a single specific (and long-dead) individual? I think so - what do others think? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
See below, in JDW section; I'm rooting for "patient" in the history section only. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In the 1900s, after some: does this mean the early 1900s, or the whole century?
1900-1909, always, no? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Not where I come from—"1900s" is usually a synonym for "the 20th century". How about "the opening decade of the 20th century"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
No thanks! Precise range used. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • total removal of the duodenum is compatible with life: "compatible with life" sounds somehow odd to me
Any alternative suggestion? Is "compatible with survival" better? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Now "mistaken beliefs that it was essential for life to preserve the duodenum" Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • until recent decades: recentism; should be more specific
It is certainly not WP:RECENTISM! I think the next paragraph conveys very adequately which "recent decades" are meant. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • [[Vitamin K deficiency|bleeding]]: that's quite the Easter egg!
it would be if we weren't already talking about Vitamin K I think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
If I wasn't reading the source in Emacs I never would have guessed that "bleeding" was pointing to Vitamin K deficiency (and I'd be far less likely to click through—after all, I "know" about "bleeding"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough - link now piped from "bleeding with jaundice", which I hope resolves. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "For the next decade, little attention was paid to this report; however, over the subsequent 15 years, there has been a virtual explosion in the recognition of this tumor.": who is being quoted, and can this not be paraphrased?
The reference. What's wrong with quoting? I don't understand why we are so scared of it. Any encyclopedic paraphrase would be far more bland. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with quoting per se, but it often integrates poorly into the surrounding text. The important thing is to be clear what's being quoted—the vast majority of readers with ignore the inline cites, and even if they don't, is the quotation from the author of the reference, or quoted by the reference? Another problem is with the way this particular quote is introduced—very abrupt. If read out loud, there would be no clue at all that this was a quote. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • are being intensely looked at: sounds like a stare-down
Changed to "investigated", though I should make it clear I don't actually think that's an improvement. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That brings me to the end of the article. I'll be back again to take a look at your responses to my first batch of comments. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from NikosGouliaros[edit]

I've previously reviewed the article, making minor contributions; I'll try not to repeat myself. I feel the need to congratulate Wiki CRUK John and everyone else who has worked for this excellent result.

  • "("invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term)": I still feel that the meaning - i.e., that some sources refer to the same disease as "invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma" and "ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma"[2][3] - isn't clear; to this attests the comment by Curly Turkey. Some minor rephrasing might be warrantied.
I see the problem, but I certainly don't want to list of the variants (I make it 7 or more, with "of the pancreas" etc). Gone with "dominated by pancreatic adenocarcinoma (variations of this name may add "invasive" and "ductal")". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "This cancer arises in the tiny ducts that carry certain hormones and enzymes away from the pancreas": I'm not sure what the sources exactly say; however, the epithelial cells adenocarcinomas arise from aren't only found in the "tiny ducts", but also in the main pancreatic duct. Moreover, strictly speaking, these tiny ducts carry pancreatic products outside the organ not directly but through the pancreatic duct. Some rephrasing might be warrantied.
"tiny" removed; don't think I put that in. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit baffled by the link to islet cell carcinomas. Is the linked article article about the PanNETs (and therefore an article with a mistaken/obsolete name), or to another pathologic entity? In the latter case, the link might confuse the reader.
Jumping in here... Hum, fair point... The problem is that Wikipedia is a bit behind the curve here, and that page should perhaps (imo, at least) be renamed as Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and updated accordingly, based on current MEDRS. Thoughts? (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The main, far longer, article is neuroendocrine tumor, covering a wider range of sites, which I think is reasonable. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (you had a typo, 86) redirects to Pancreatic cancer; I'm not sure it should. islet cell carcinoma should be merged to one of these (NET or here) I think. Mind you the codes are still there in the ICD/Mesh databases - would they get removed? It doesn't feature in the most recent literature, as the text says. I'd welcome other views. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yup, those are all questions I'd been asking myself too (but wasn't really in a hurry to get involved in... help!) At present, the information at Neuroendocrine tumor#Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is largely genetic, and I feel "Pancreatic cancer" probably is the more appropriate redirect, for the moment at least. (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see exactly what's going on, and can "unbaffle" it. It will take about 2 hours. I can aim to get to this in about 10 days as I have a surge in non-wikipedia activities. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
What was "nesidioblastoma" until October 16, and was correctly that topic (despite wrongly having general statistics for "islet cell tumors" - removed) is moved back to nesidioblastoma. Keeping all neuroendocrine tumor content within the main article has proven unwieldy. Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors already have a specific article, and in usage carcinoid marches forward through time (despite WHO). The traditional pancreatic terms, "islet cell tumor" and "islet cell carcinoma", are now redirected to pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. PanNET is now linked to pancreatic cancer but no longer redirects there. I reorganized (and will further edit) the contents. I think these changes address these suggestions for this bullet point item. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Signs and symptoms[edit]
  • Image caption: I propose "Man with jaundice etc" instead of "Painless jaundice" (pain isn't shown!)
But he's smiling! [joke]. I agree, done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Painless jaundice": The problem here is that, in the line just above, we say that jaundice with pain is much more common than painless one. We could just delete the adjective painless here. On the other hand, cancer (pancreatic, bile duct, ampulla of Vater, metastatic liver) is a typical cause of painless jaundice.[4] This is not a contradiction: a disease can be the most common cause of a given symptom, and this symptom can still be uncommon in this disease.
Yes. Am I right in thinking that the jaundice itself is never the cause of the pain as such? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes you are. In painful jaundice jaundice and pain only have a common cause. NikosGouliaros (talk)
Rewritten to:"Jaundice, a yellow tint to the whites of the eyes or skin, with or without pain, and possibly in combination with darkened urine. This results when a cancer of the head of the pancreas obstructs the common bile duct as it runs through the pancreas."
  • It might be better if every paragraph in the bullet list begins with a mention of the actual manifestation; e.g. one can rephrase: "Nausea and a feeling of fullness, caused by compression of neighboring organs by the tumor, which disrupts digestive processes and makes it difficult for the stomach to empty".
But this point, which has been rewritten by about 6 people including you, also includes the floating stools. I think it's ok & I'm reluctant to reopen this one. We are going round and round in circles on several of these points. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Point taken. NikosGouliaros (talk)
  • I still disagree with the subheading "other symptoms" in this context. It just isn't clear what separates symptoms below the subheading from symptoms above. This must be solved somehow. Just deleting the subheading might be enough.
Doc James has changed to "Other findings", which I think works well. As I said in the peer review, I want to keep the main list of symptoms very simple and accessible. This is how it was in early May, by the way. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It does work better. NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This bullet point could be added: "Other non-specific manifestations of the disease include: weakness and fatigability; dry mouth; sleep problems; constipation; dyspepsia; and a palpable abdominal mass."[5]
Is the "palpable mass" the same as in Courvoisier's law (which I know you want to move up here)? The rest are really non-specific, and don't feature in the main sources. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not the same; a palpable mass can be anywhere, and it's the actual tumor, not the gallbladder. It's rare though, so I insist no more. NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A more general issue: Symptoms and signs are different types of disease manifestations. Are we supposed to make a distinction clear and list them separately? (No distinction is made in the FA lung cancer.)
Imo, no. Symptoms can also be signs (though not all signs are symptoms). (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was and I am in favor of a subsection dedicated to Metastasis; however, one might expect that, if this will be in the "Signs and symptoms" section, it must include some symptoms of metastatic disease.
Too various, allowing for the major possibilities, aren't they? Also they are not given in any of the main sources I've used on pancreatic cancer, which makes me think we have gone far enough down this path. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Point taken. NikosGouliaros (talk)
We now have a metastasis section though (see elsewhere this section) Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Gone. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Risk factors[edit]

Everything looks great, aside of the paragraph on rare hereditary syndromes, which looks wedged in the bullet list. Why don't we just connect it to the previous paragraph?

Indented, which works I think. It's all too long for one para. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm still not sure that repeating the disease symptoms in this section is justified. Could other reviewers say what they think?
I don't think it's appropriate either. (Commented here, under "Anything else outstanding?). (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
And I must add that this repetition is not present in the Diagnosis sections of any of the 4 FA's on maligancies (acute myeloid leukemia, cholangiocarcinoma, endometrial cancer, and lung cancer). Unfortunately the medical MOS is not clear on what should be included in this section. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Similarly, I think the place for Courvoisier sign is the Symptoms and signs section.
Well, that's one that actually is diagnostically relevant. Since MEDMOS doesn't really follow the usual practice for journal review articles anyway, I think a reasonable case could be made, from a WP perspective, for including this sort of diagnostic red flag here. 2c, (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree; the same case could be made for painless jaundice. Courvoisier sign is a sign and is probably warrantied to be in the S&S section. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Only now do I notice that the CT image has the arms of a disconnected cross pointing at the tumor. I was thinking of making this a bit more obvious, e.g. by coloring the arms - this could be requested at the graphics lab.
Caption changed, to "... Cross lines towards top left surround a macrocystic adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head.", but yes, added colour is an achievable improvement. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Requested at the graphics lab. NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
And I'm grateful to Centpacrr for doing it. I think it looks better. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanked, and added color noted in caption. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
My pleasure. Glad this worked out well for you. Centpacrr (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The mention of Stage III seems a bit out of the blue; the average reader does not know how many the AJCC-UICC stages are. I propose the following rewriting of the first paragraph (my additions in italics):
The cancer staging system used internationally for pancreatic cancer is that of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control, referred to as AJCC-UICC; it designates 4 stages, which correspond to specific TNM stages. Stage I and II tumors are resectable, and so are the subset of Stage III tumors that do not involve the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery and are classified as "borderline resectable"; the remaining Stage III and Stage IV (metastatic) tumors are unresectable. The TNM staging system builds up an overall stage by assessing the Tumor size, spread to lymph Nodes and Metastasis. Stage T1 is localized tumors less than 2 cm in size, T2 tumors over that size but still wholly in the pancreas, and the other T stages are defined by the degree of spread beyond. A simpler practical classification groups the tumors as "resectable", "borderline resectable", and "unresectable" because of locally advanced or metastatic disease.
Rewritten along these lines, but with shorter sentences: "...referred to as AJCC-UICC. This designates 4 stages, which correspond to specific TNM stages. Stage I and II tumors are candidates for successful surgical removal or resection. The staging system makes an important distinction within Stage III between tumors that are classed as "borderline resectable" because they do not involve the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery, and "unresectable". Surgery is likely to be possible for the former, but is not usual for the latter." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Is it acceptable that the images have more details on the TNM staging than the text mentions? (It's a question, not an opinion.)
I think so. There's not much more. But I can add if desired. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The TNM image gallery isn't centered but its heading is. Could it be formatted a bit better? Maybe center the gallery too?
For me the gallery is left-aligned and the heading right-aligned, the latter looking a bit odd. At Help:Gallery tag I'm not seeing options for these at all (on IE). Maybe there are different templates or tags to use. Wiki CRUK John (talk)
By "Heading" I mean the words "Pancreatic cancer staging". And what I mean is this. NikosGouliaros (talk)
Sorted, thanks Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Intraepithelial neoplasia merits a wikilink. The article on it is little more than a disambiguation page; imo it should become a redirection page to carcinoma in situ, where our wikilink should also be directed to (despite the fact that this page too is in heavy need of improvement). (Or perhaps Carcinoma in situ should be renamed intraepithelial neoplasia; this is a tricky subject, expert opinion is warrantied, and not very relevant to pancreatic cancer).
  • I'm not entirely sure that all or most exocrine pancreatic cancers evolve from cysts; is it supported by the sources? (I've no access to the NEJM article). In my mind, intraepithelial neoplasia is the universal preliminary lesion of adenocarcinoma.[6][7] NB: The existence of several types of precancerous cysts that often evolve to frank cancer does not mean that these lesions are the major precursor lesion of adenocarcinomas.
I'm not an expert on the subject; but after rereading this section (in more depth than I did while peer reviewing the article) I wonder if it might not be totally accurate. I admit not having the time to dig into the matter in detail (not being an expert on it).
Having checked (Wolfgang mostly) I think you're right - rewrite to come. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, and your rewrite. It looks excellent![8] (And note that I was mistaken that intraepithelial neoplasia [IN] is the universal preliminary lesion). One could add that IN is by far the most common of the three.[9] However, the first paragraph seems to need adjusting now that intraepithelial neoplasia has been added.
A question though Besides pancreatic serous cystadenomas (SCNs), which are almost always benign, three types of precancerous lesion are recognized. Does it mean that SCNs are precancerous too? NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The ominous image of liver metastases might be better off in the Metastasis section of Signs and Symptoms.
Moved Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why the parenthesis "(cystic lesions)" is necessary to accompany "cysts".
Indeed - leaving for rewrite of this bit, per point 2 up. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Encasement": maybe, for the sake of clarity, make it "encasement by the tumor"?
Now rewritten to: "...but not "encasement" by the tumor, defined as the tumor touching more than 180° round the vessel." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It needed rewriting, and old vandalism reverting, but now done at first occurence, in the chemo section. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Τhe changes of the last few years have only increased average survival times by a few months": And let's always pay attention never to refer to "average" when it's about "median".
Time to read the lead section of average, I think. I'd be amazed if it was not about equally true of both, but will check the sources. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
"average" removed; not needed I think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Watchful waiting of small tumors identified incidentally, for example on a computed tomography (CT) scan performed for other purposes, may not ultimately need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear.": Something sounds wrong here.
Yes, needed a "which" I think, but now rewritten to: "Small tumors that are identified incidentally, for example on a CT scan performed for other purposes, may be followed by watchful waiting. Ultimately, these small tumors may not need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear. " Clear, if a tad repetitive. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Radiolabeled hormone: some PanNETs absorb a hormone called norepinephrine and these may respond to nuclear medicine medication, radiolabeled MIBG therapy (or, experimentally, other hormones), given intravenously.": May I suggest rephrasing?
Now: "Some PanNETs absorb specific peptides or hormones, and these PanNETs may respond to nuclear medicine therapy with radiolabeled peptides or hormones such as iobenguane (iodine-131-MIBG).[55][56][57][58] Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation, and hepatic artery embolization may also be used.[59]". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "increased average survival rates": As above: is it truly average or actually median? If unsure, it might be better to just mention "increased survival rates".
As above; the rates are calculated on the medians, but I avoid that term for accessibility reasons (and even more "measures of central tendency"), so your dichotomy is strictly incorrect (a median is an average). But the whole issue can be skipped by omitting any measure I think, and the source often does so in discussing them. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong view on it (I would if it wrote "mean" instead of "average"); why don't you just leave it as it is. NikosGouliaros (talk)
  • The fact that I do not support "Distribution" as a substitute for "Epidemiology" as a section heading still applies (see the discussion in MEDMOS), but it wouldn't oppose a FA candidacy for it.
  • "In recent clinical guidelines": I'm not sure this offers anything
Otherwise people will tag/query "These are variously estimated ..." I think. Mention of divergence between sources tends to produce such a reaction in my experience. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe add a couple of words on how vitamin K helped with postoperative survival?
Will do, though I now see from this that my source appears to be mistaken in calling this a discovery of 1940, since the key papers came out in 1938 (notes 2 & 3)! Irritating & I'd better say something. Probably a mistaken confusion with the line following. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Done as: "The discovery in the late 1930s that vitamin K prevented bleeding with jaundice,..." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that "the tissue surrounding the pancreatic tumor" is the most accurate definition of "stroma" we could come up with.
  • Are citations supposed to be totally uniform? E.g., have all the same links (linkable title, DOI, PMID), uniformly mention either full journal titles or initialsms, etc? I don't particularly mind, but I can start working on it
Yes, very much so, see the top of the page (Sandy Georgia comment). But there has been a lot of re-editing by various hands, especially in the peer review. I think we may need a section on the talk page to confirm what the style for the article actually is - I don't have very strong views, since there appears to be (very wrongly imo) a local consensus that page refs should NEVER be used for articles, except that it should as close as possible to the auto-template style in the standard editing window menu. But various people have adjusted the refs to suit their own preferences and we need to be consistent. Any help on this greatly appreciated. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I've copy edited the citations from the lead, adding some doi's and url's, and making the use of commas and semicolons more uniform. It's an example of what I have in mind. I haven't touched the journal names though; I see some articles in PMC without uniform style for them.[6] NikosGouliaros (talk)
  • Am I exggerating if I propose to replace the lead image, because of its inaccurate depiction of the pancreatic duct? We could go for this image, which is the lead image in pancreas; or the CT image that shows the tumor, which will be similar (though perhaps a bit inferior) to the lead image in cancer and lung cancer.
I wasn't aware that had a mistake too; what is it? Both of those images are already used, and I'd rather have one that shows the pancreas in its surroundings in that position. I'll look for another.
There's this, thias, or this (COI), Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In the current one, the pancreatic duct should be much longer and continuing further down to the tail.
I think the "COI" one is the best of the three :) NikosGouliaros (talk)
Right, yes, I saw that. Will change to the CRUK one for now. There may be better ones but the categorization on Commons is unreliable so they are hard to find. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(To be cont'd) --NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Mostly done. --NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [Update: I have failed to mention a conflict of interest, as I am the translator of this source[5] to Greek. NikosGouliaros (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)]

Comments from WS[edit]

Overall a great article which saw a lot of improvement over the last months. I am a bit confused over whether it is supposed to completely cover neuroendocrine tumors or not. Depending on the answer to that question it either contains much too little or too much information about them. Considering the big differences, wouldn't it be more clear to have a short general pancreatic cancer and then separate articles for adenocarcinoma and endocrine tumors? (no doubt this has been discussed before, I haven't looked that up).

The information about resectability is very short and simplistic and should be expanded. Vascular involvement does not necessarily preclude surgery, e.g. splenic artery and vein involvement in more distal tumors is usually not a problem as they can be resected en-bloc (with or without the spleen). There is a lot to be said about borderline resectable tumors, where vascular reconstructions (especially for venous involvement) and neo-adjuvant therapy (to increase the chance of free resection margins) are slowly becoming more commonly used. Also the info about resectability is now spread out across at least three sections, it would be helpful to consolidate that. --WS (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for these, and the earlier comments. The scope issue has been discussed before, and does present a dilemma. At the moment the article is supposed to cover all, and arguably gives too much weight to PanNETs, while still too little information about them - they are a diverse group its hard to generalize about. We have the same issue at Brain tumor, but there the balance is different, and we are planning to consistently adopt the approach you suggest. Here I think the present solution is the best, given the predominance of PAC and other factors. One issue is that pancreatic cancer is the common name and the natural search term.
I'll look at the resectability question - I'd been meaning to add some bits, like looking for the fat-plane. So far I have avoided specifying blood vessels and similar detail, as once you start you may have to do a fair bit, and Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Pancreatectomy (hmmm) have their own articles, though neither touch on this at present. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Liver cancer is a good example with a similar situation (HCC vs cholangiocarcinoma), I think it works very well there to have three articles. I think it is almost impossible to comprehensively cover both in one article and at the least PanNet should be split out, leaving only the necessary bits here. Regarding respectability, that should be covered here as it is specific to pancreatic cancer and one of the most important aspects of the diagnosis. It does not need to be very difficult, as there is no definite consensus, but broadly speaking coeliac trunk/superior mesenteric artery/hepatic artery involvement is generally considered unresectable, SMV/portal vein involvement often unresectable but sometimes done with vascular reconstruction, and splenic artery/vein resectable. Assessing resectability with CT is hard to completely cover as various criteria exist, would keep that very general. --WS (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't changed the situation as I found it, which is that we have "Pancreatic cancer", to which PAC redirects, and neuroendocrine tumor covering all sites. There's been discussion but no great consensus to (effectively) move this to PAC and split out the PanNETs. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure it can be done this way, but as you have nominated this as a featured article, in my opinion it completely fails the comprehensiveness criterion with regard to PanNETs. To get it featured, I think it should be decided to keep this in (hard, probably confusing) or out and keep only the basic information here or in an umbrella article. --WS (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The subject of the article is "Pancreatic cancer", of which the many varied types of PanNETs, none predominating in the group, form 1-2% of cases. The comprehensiveness requirement reads "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Which major facts or details do you think are neglected, within the scope of an article on the wider topic? It certainly is more comprehensive than the many review articles, several used as sources here, that are titled using "Pancreatic cancer" but then say (usually at the end of para 1) that they are in fact entirely, or almost entirely, about pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Examples, by first-named author, are: Wolfgang, Vincent, Ryan Syl de La Crz. Most sources directed at the general public have made the same choice as this article. Leading examples are: ACS, NCI (professional, also patient version), NHS Choices, WebMD, and so on. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Well on one hand, there is indeed extensive information in the classification and management sections, but on the other hand, any specific information on diagnosis and prevention/screening is completely lacking. Signs and symptoms are very shortly mentioned but only within the classification section, and it is not clear that the information in the symptoms section does mostly not apply to them. --WS (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It is clear in that the list is introduced as "common symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma". I think the symptoms of PanNETs are too various to describe usefully in an article of this type, but I'm willing to be pursuaded otherwise. The two main journal sources (Burns & Edil and Oberg et al) conspicuously duck giving comprehensive lists of symptoms, but I could add that (from B&E) the ~90% of non-functioning cases "typically present with symptoms related to local mass effect or metastatic disease" which is all they have to say on that. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
1) WS correctly points out thematically that resectibility criteria are examined only briefly herein. However, this is a busily debated / potentially moving target over the past 6 to 7 years e.g. - PMIDs: 16703621, 24787115, 22209537, 22064622, 25519932, 25516657, 25339810, 25071332, 24578248 - and many others. The issue is tangentially touched on within "Research." I would think that a brief encyclopedic synthesis of this corpus is possible, taking WP:NPOV care. I will address the issue tomorrow if I have time. 2) As far as "too much, or too little" on PanNETs, I don't have a strong opinion, although I might opt myself to reduce that content modestly. Such a trim would be procedurally simple, and I think might be a broad modest trim, with a particular focus on "Treatment. I'd be willing to do this - give me a nudge on my Talk page. I might even be tempted to do it boldly tomorrow. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather it was discussed first. The subject of "Pancreatic cancer" certainly includes them, and I'm more sympathetic to exapanding rather than reducing the coverage of them, where succinct generalization is possible. Expanding resection criteria somewhat is fine, though anything more than a few lines should go to surgical articles, perhaps even a new one. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dwaipayan[edit]

  • "In people not suitable for curative surgery, palliative chemotherapy may be used to improve quality of life and extend life." There seems to be a minor technical problem in the language. The chemotherapy, whether purely palliative versus curative versus both palliative and curative, depends on the intent. Palliative intent does not necessarily mean that the intent is against lengthening life; however, usually palliative chemotherapy means chemotherapy not particularly intended to lengthen life. So, in this instance, is Gemcitabine (or other regimen) really palliative, if the intent is to increase life? Again, I admit that the same agent can be used with palliative versus curative intent. What I propose is to omit the word "palliative" preceding chemotherapy, and use "chemotherapy may be used to improve quality of life (palliative intent) and extend life". Other comments are welcome. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I see the point, but I think "...chemotherapy may be used to extend life or improve its quality" is neater. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been doing some edits, here and to the article, as Johnbod, my other a/c, which I try not to do to avoid confusing people. Anyway, we're both going to bed now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been, and am, travelling, so won't be editing much, but I have some refs, rewrites etc stored up for after I get back. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Reads well - some queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In the United States, pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of deaths due to cancer - surely "death" here? (collective noun?)
I don't think so - they count the deaths one by one (in theory anyway). Or you can use both. I don't like "cancer death", which is collective. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma typically has a poor prognosis - I'd word it stronger - "dismal prognosis" (but not a deal-breaker)
Happy to do that - it is just the word that a large number of sources use. I anticipate flak from some though. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
While agreeing that "poor prognosis" may be considered an understatement, I think it would be preferable to avoid here the cliché of "dismal prognosis", for the sake of some of our lay readers (personally, I'd prefer "very poor"). (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
As I said! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a number of symptoms, but none that are individually distinctive to it or appear in the early stages of disease. - first clause redundant (all conditions have "a number of symptoms") - I would reword to "The symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are not distinctive, and do not generally appear until the disease is well advanced"
I'd like to see some quantification/elaboration of defining "family history" or genetic loading. This interests me personally as I've had an uncle and great aunt die of Ca pancreas - so giving the reader some idea, even as a footnote, would be good.
Quantification should all be in terms of increased risk, I think, and these are what the sources give (this sort of thing). Actual incidence is probably too variable in human populations to use. Some of the increases are rather low, others alarmingly high. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise article looking pretty good -doing a nice job of balancing accessibility and exactness (i.e. minimising jargon and maximising plain English) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Jfdwolff[edit]

Great collaborative effort, and testimony to the hard work by a number of dedicated editors.

  • The word "patient" should generally be avoided and replaced with a neutral term.
I have gone through & replaced with "person" or "case", except in the "history" section. See User:Curly Turkey's comments above - he thought that "The first reported partial pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed by the Italian surgeon Alessandro Codivilla in 1898, but the person only survived 18 days before succumbing to complications" was ambiguous, as "person" might refer to the surgeon. I find this "ambiguity" implausible, but "patient" certainly reads more naturally. CT changed it to patient, Doc James changed it back, but I've now changed it to patient again. I understand the general avoidance of "patient", but I don't see that it applies when referring to specific but un-named historical individuals who died decades ago or more (and from their disease). There's also the one just after about one of Whipple's cases in the 1930s: "Only one of the patients had the duodenum totally removed, but he survived for two years before dying of metastasis to the liver". If anyone doesn't agree with these, please supply arguments relating to such historical examples, and suggestions on alternative phrasings - "case" and "person" don't really work. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The opening line sounds a little bit clunky. While cancer is thought to arise from a single cell, the current phrasing suggests that it is diffuse/hyperplastic growth rather than a mass lesion. I suggest this is rephrased.
Another of the places where the grass has been churned up. See Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Opening_line. I agree it could be improved, but I'm not sure how at present. Perhaps discussion should continue at that talk page section. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It is my personal view that "Classification" should not precede "Signs and symptoms", because as a section it usually requires a lot of context from other sections. It is probably best covered as a subsection of "Diagnosis".
The current position follows WP:MEDMOS. Personally I think (in this case anyway) it is much easier and effective to get this clear early on. It gives even more context than it takes to/from "Signs and symptoms" and "diagnosis", doesn't it? I've noticed that other web pages that don't have it early on get into difficulties, and risk being misleading. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Imo, without assuming some background knowledge (from the lead?) appropriate contextualization is always going to be an editorial challenge (eg describing a spectrum of symptoms depends on background knowledge of tumor types). However, I do share some misgivings about the choice of heading. Apart from the strictly editorial question of whether it's appropriate to expect our readers to know that we're only referring to pathological (rather than actual clinical) classification, the fact is we're not even really getting close to outlining that – and I wouldn't suggest we attempt to do so (though a ref might be helpful[?]). Imo, 'Types' would be a far more appropriate heading, which is both unpretentious and reader-friendly. And fwiw, I don't think a highly restrictive interpretation of MEDMOS should be a reason for veto (per WP:MOSvT??). 2c, (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It is not quite clear why "Alcohol" is a subsection of "Risk factors" despite only consisting of three sentences. I would suggest breaking out the genetical causes into their own subsection, seeing that genetics is thought to contribute substantially to many cases.
It's in a sub-section to avoid it being taken as part of the list, because it isn't endorsed as a risk factor, but I thought that there has been so much investigation as to whether it is that it shouldn't just be omitted. I'm thinking what to do with inherited genetic factors in the light of Cas Liber's comments above too. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In "Diagnosis", the paragraph beginning with "About 80% to 85%" doesn't have reference despite making a specific numerical claim. Similarly, the next paragraph ("Patients sometimes") duplicates content from earlier in the article, but has no reference. Further on in this section, "Pancreatic cancer has an immunohistochemical profile [...]" has no reference despite being a rather specific claim.
  • In "Mechanism", I'm wondering whether it might be an idea to move the highly technical content about mutations into a table. I am concerned that the reader will change channels after being put off by the terminology.
  • "Prevention" is a short section, and I am unsure why it needs a tiny subsection called "screening". How about calling the whole section "prevention and screening"?
Yes, done that. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Management" section is very good, although I am wondering if all discussion of chemotherapy could be conducted in a single section. After all, the adjuvant and palliative regimens are effectively identical.
I rather think it was like that until the FAC began .... Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Piggybacking here just to say that I think the subsection on PanNETs still needs some attention (commented here). Also I agree it would be preferable to avoid having a separate "Palliative care" subsection. (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "History" - is there any source that discussed how the condition was first recognised? Who was the Courvoisier's sign of the eponymous sign? I am a bit unsure about the direct quote at the end of the section. Any reason it can't be paraphrased?
I didn't find any, though I'm sure it's somewhere. Ludwig Georg Courvoisier (1843–1918), a surgeon from Basel, published Casuistisch-statistische Beiträge zur Pathologie und Chirurgie der Gallenwege in 1890, describing the sign as eliminating the possibility of gallstones, but not actually mentioning cancer (according to Wikipedia), which is why I left him out. But he could be mentioned. I also looked for the early radio & chemo history, but couldn't find it easily - I imagine the early chemo results were so poor it hasn't been written up much. Personally I like the quote, and on a general point think Wikipedia medicine doesn't use direct quotation often enough (I think mainly put off by gross overuse by some poor editors). The "virtual explosion" is graphic phrasing I'd like to keep, and would obviously need to quote, and by that time you might as well keep the whole line, imo, rather than a paraphrase that would probably take more words to convey the meaning in a blander fashion. See also Curly Turkey above, who doesn't like this either (but also CasLiber above, rooting for "dismal" prognosis). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
comment moved from Talk:Pancreatic cancer (as requested): There's an unexplained quotation (following a semicolon): "For the next decade, little attention was paid to this report; however, over the subsequent 15 years, there has been a virtual explosion in the recognition of this tumor."[38] Without consulting the reference, this juxtaposition makes no sense. I'd also question the explosive tone, which seems to jar with the more encyclopedic prose. Couldn't the quotation be inserted in the reference? (Note: I'm also unsure about the reliance on primary sources in the surrounding text - can't we have secondary source/s [PMID 24206780?] alongside?) (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
RE Courvoisier's sign: Based on this review/historical article, which I've used to source/rephrase a statement in the Diagnosis section, I agree with John that no mention of Courvoisier himself is needed here, given that he seems not actually to have mentioned pancreatic cancer in his original publication of 1890 (unsurprisingly perhaps, given the incomplete recognition of the disease at the time he was writing). (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Research" - good balanced coverage of the current state of research.

Happy to offer unqualified support once the above is addressed. JFW | T@lk 10:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Josh Hutcherson[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Mark Miller[edit]

Image review

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

Well written?

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

Lede section

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

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

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

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

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

Re-review by Mark Miller[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

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

Comments from starship.paint[edit]


  • I have concerns about the length of the lead. Having taken a look at other FAs of others like Eric Bana, Reese Witherspoon, Kirsten Dunst, Cillian Murphy and Jake Gyllenhaal, they all have had at least 6 more years of acting experience, but shorter leads in their articles. My own notions of popularity is that I have heard of all of them except Gyllenhaal, and I haven't heard of Hutcherson either, so I'd expect the rest of them to have more success and notable stuff, though I might be mistaken.
  • How notable (commercially successful) are all the films in the second paragraph of the lead? I only know of The Polar Express, Zathura and Journey to the Center of the Earth.
  • I don't doubt the importance of the Hunger Games, but there's no need for the play-by-play with timeline in the lead. In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role ... based on Suzanne Collins' novel series ... time-frame which would prove the keep the young actor busy ... were released in November 2013 and 2014, respectively, with the final film Mockingjay – Part 2 scheduled for release in November 2015
  • Don't think the Basketball game is needed for the lead.
  • Howl's Moving Castle (film) states that the English dubbed version of the film was only released in 2005. It was the original Japanese version which was released in 2004.
  • Fixed all of the above. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm still finding the lead too long. Red Dawn (2012), 7 Days in Havana (2012), The Forger (2012) should all be cut from the third paragraph, I feel that they are all relatively minor films. Forger is in the fourth paragraph anyway.
  • Proposing Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in the box-office record setting The Hunger Games film series, which has released films annually from 2012 to 2014. Then talk about Journey 2 and Epic.
  • Escobar: Paradise Lost should be hidden until the film is released. Once it is, it can be lumped together with Detention (2011) and The Forger (2012) as Hutcherson is also playing a lead in Escobar, it seems.
  • I found a website Box Office Mojo. I hope it's reliable, because it has left me questioning the choices of the films in the lead. Even if Hutcherson has lead roles, the worldwide grosses for Manhattan, Firehouse and Kids are 1, 17 and 34 million dollars. In fact, almost all of Hutcherson's other films (before 2010, then I stopped checking) grossed better. Kicking, Zathura and RV grossed between 55 to 90 million dollars. Seeing as he won an award for Zathura and Kids and was nominated for RV, I'd swap Manhattan and Firehouse for Zathura and RV. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree as well, seems reasonable to assume these are more notable for the lede as described by Starship through Boxofficemojo.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Box Office Mojo is reliable, and that's a very valid point. I've made the switches and taken care of the comments above. Gloss 06:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Great, now, I'd like to propose changes to the third paragraph of the lead.
"In 2011, Hutcherson landed the leading role of Peeta Mellark in the box office record setting The Hunger Games film series, which has released films annually from 2012 to 2014. He has ten minor award nominations for the released films, having had twelve nominations. Please Explain The time-frame proved to the keep the young actor busy, with During this time, Hutcherson also played a lead role in the adventure comedy film Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012) and a voiceover role in the animated action-adventure film Epic (2013)." starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've clarified the awards line. It was supposed to say that he has ten award wins out of 12 nominations. Fixed. Also fixed the second half of that. Gloss 12:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Early life

  • Regarding his younger brother, the Ellen source doesn't say anything about a brother in the text and I'm not getting video playback. does not mention the name of his younger brother. Found a source and added. There's more stuff in the source I added, like triathlons and Justice League. I think Justice League warrants a mention later, would like to see information on that.
  • I went to go to the link for that interview, but it brings me to a link of an accident news report? Gloss 16:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, I'm an idiot. But like I said below, I've heard concerns in the past about including sports hobbies, which would probably include the triathlons. Your point about Justice League brings up a good question though. Out of the television appearances he has (listed in the table in the filmography section) only the television films and the episode of ER are included in the bio. I think the times where he's appeared in one episode of a TV show are likely not notable enough to talk about in his career section, though. So I'm thinking the move here is to remove the ER prose. Does that sound right to you? Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Problem is, ER is a very successful TV series that even a cameo is probably worth a mention in the body. Justice League Unlimited doesn't seem to be as successful so it need not be mentioned then. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't read the Northwest Herald source. Could you use an archive version with or WebCite?
  • Done Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Where does he live now? Still in Kentucky? Maybe for the personal life section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 09:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Added. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether where he currently lives should be in early life instead of personal life. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You're right, moved it! Gloss 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • interview has stuff on his sports interests and something when he was "three or four".
  • I've had sports interests on the page before, but they were removed once and argued about the second time re-added. It seems the feeling is that everyone has their hobbies and to list that he enjoys playing football and soccer and basketball would belong on a fan site and not an encyclopedia. And the info about when he was three or four is already in the article, just worded a bit differently since sources vary about what age he actually started bugging his parents about acting. In the article it says "Although his parents were hesitant, Hutcherson's interest in acting developed and blossomed at a young age." - but let me know if you don't think that covers it. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Movieline interview has something about when he was eight years old, as well as something about Oakwood apartments. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Added, and thanks for finding these two sources. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Personal life

  • I saw the old version of personal life you brought up above. With reliable sources, I would add the fandom of the Wildcats and the Reds. The house he bought might be relevant if he lives there currently. His previous dating of Hudgens is worth a mention.
  • Before I get to the rest of the comments later, it seems like most users agreed that teams he roots for and housing information is irrelevant, as well as only the rumors of dating Hudgens. It was never confirmed outside of some side comments that media people twisted into what they wanted it to mean. Gloss 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • RE: sports interests, sports teams, Mark Miller has concerns about the over-abundance of gay-related content in the personal life. This content will address that issue in my eyes. Unless you have better ideas?
  • RE: Hudgens, I watched that interview on YouTube. The "we're really good friends now" is telling. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems telling but that isn't a reliable source confirming a relationship. Seems just like a (likely) way of reading into his words. And I have an idea for the sports stuff, I'll try again with adding some of the information in. Gloss 06:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Each year since 2012" is not a timeless statement. I'd edit to something like "annually from 2012 to 2014".
  • Fixed Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • This was mentioned in a previous version, not sure when it got removed. I've re-added it, thanks for catching that. Gloss 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Good job on expanding the Personal life section.
  • Why, thank you! Gloss 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Reception and acting style

  • Are there any weaknesses in his acting craft, considering the two paragraphs of praise? Other than this, the section is fine. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I used Julianne Moore#Reception and roles to help me put the section together. There aren't any negative comments in there, and I feel like the sections in general are to show how critics have found the actors growing and their abilities developing. It's usually unlikely for a review about a certain actor to be negative unless they hit some kind of downward spiral along the way in their career. But for someone like Moore or Hutcherson whose careers have only gone upwards, you'd have a hard time finding negative comments about them as an actor. Gloss 20:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


  • What is a "television film"? found out, I wiki-linked Television film
  • What's the difference between "Short film" and "Television film"?
  • A short film is simply a film not long enough to be a featured length film, I believe. See short film. And a television film would be a film that was made for and released on television rather than in theaters. Gloss 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Then what is House Blend? It's a discontinued pilot episode of 22 minutes? That's not of feature length right? Similarly Becoming Glen is 22 minutes long. In the same vein, could you find out how long Eddie's Father was?
  • Not sure why those were listed as television films, this section was the first thing put together on the page way back when and the spot I've focused the least on, admittedly. I'll go back over and double check the notes on everything. However all three of these are shows he appeared in only a pilot episode for, so I've adjusted the note to say that. Gloss 07:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Acting career

  • The quote on Peeta -> It seems more relevant to the character than Hutcherson, especially the first two sentences. So essentially the quote regarding Hutcherson is along the lines of "I'm excited and nervous about portraying a PTSD-suffering person because I've never gone crazy before in a movie". Reading it like that, it doesn't seem worthy of a standalone showcase quote to me. Naturally, there will be more to come regarding this section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I moved this quote into the article, it's something I've been thinking about for a while but someone else bringing it up confirms that it should have been moved. In place, I took a quote from the reception and acting style section and put it into a quote box and I think it added some extra flavor to that section. Gloss 20:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is a review by The Onion, a humorous satire site, in the article? It's not a serious review.
  • It was the only negative review I found, and didn't think much about how it may not be a serious review. Not sure I have a strong enough opinion about it though, so I've removed it. Gloss 04:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That role is so key to have a boy that can use language. That’s how Peeta navigates the world, that’s his gift, and Josh was the one who could bring that to life in such a real and natural way - Collins reference [49] - worth a standalone quote?
  • Sure! I like that. Added. Gloss 07:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there anything that could be written in this section for the television film Party Wagon?
  • I personally feel it wouldn't be necessary, being that it was a small TV film, with very little coverage and his role was also particularly minor. Like I've said, it's impossible to cover everything he's done, so in the career sections I feel it's best we stick to the notable appearances. However, if you feel strongly that it should be added, I suppose something small can be added in. Gloss 07:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah okay I understand. I'll tackle the rest of this section at a later date. The rest of the article is good to go. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, thank you. Gloss 07:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Once in Hollywood, Hutcherson got a start by appearing in various television commercials. - I would like to get a sense of timing of this, which year or how old was he? The source is a book, so I can't read it.
  • You have great timing, I just logged on. Added in. Gloss 03:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer Metacritic's rating system than Rotten Tomatoes, but if other FAs use it and nobody else has objected then ignore this.
  • For the Polar Express, the source states that Hutcherson was the young version of the Hero Boy, the adult version is played by another actor.
  • Mention Polar and Howl's are fantasy films?
  • Yeah, I noticed other FA's use Tomatoes, so that's the one I went with. Fixed other two issues. Gloss 03:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Since Zathura was much more commercially successful than Manhattan, perhaps it should get more weight.
  • Any comments on Hutcherson's performance in RV? Any genre for Cirque?
  • While these two can be done, we don't want the bloat the prose by going into major detail about every film, since the article is about Hutcherson and not really supposed to be a movie-by-movie review of him in all of his roles. There's a reason some films have very little while others have a solid amount of content. It depends on what the sources have to offer. Little Manhattan for example had some good stuff in the interviews and reviews which is why there's a lot of content on it. And we don't want to get too repetitive, so if we give comments on his performance in one paragraph, it helps the flow a bit to talk about some different things in the next paragraph, especially for a film like RV which received such negative reviews and isn't considered any kind of big point in Hutcherson's career, and then go back to talking about his performance the next time some good content comes up. Gloss 03:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The thing is - first things first I'm judging by the film's commercial success - and therefore exposure for Josh. RV had about five times the commercial success of Little Manhattan. What then matters to me is not if the film was good - it's whether Josh's performance was good.
  • He was nominated for an award for Motocross Kids. Is that worth a mention?
  • I'll put some thought into the RV/Zathura situation. Motocross Kids was only a young artist award, and only a nomination and not a win. The YA award is mentioned 2-3 other times in the article usually around a spot where he actually won one, and this isn't a very notable film. Gloss 04:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Added in a bit more about Zathura since it was more on the successful side. Threw in a genre for Cirque. But like I was saying, we don't want it getting too repetitive and if the film wasn't a big part of his career, I feel like it's better to not bloat anything up when the rest of the article contains plenty of reviews on his performances and a whole section on him as an actor. Gloss 04:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If Brendan Fraser is mentioned for Journey, how about the Rock for Journey 2? Both or none, IMO.
  • Weird suggestion -> contact the owners of his fan site to ask for their comments on anything you might have missed? OK I'm taking a (hours-long?) break before the next sub-section. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Removed Fraser. But owners of a fan site aren't experienced at all in how Wikipedia articles work and the kind of information they should consist of. They're a fan site, we're an encyclopedia. Our ideas of what should belong in an article are likely to vary. Gloss 04:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge that. I was just thinking, it is possible that our article has missed out on something we haven't even read about, especially something not related to film, and who would have read more on Hutcherton than his fans?
  • I don't see need for mention of Beyonce and Farrell for Epic.
  • In Early Life, Fightmaster needs a source.
  • Journey 2 is his most commercially successful non-Hunger Games film. I'd like to see more on that film.
  • Prose seems fine, I copy-edited what I saw, but not sure if His father stated "Ever since needs a comma in there. Otherwise, that's it for the article. I'd be on Wikibreak the next few days, will pop back in to check on the changes eventually. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the latest in a number of constellation articles improved to GA/FA status. It got good feedback at Talk:Telescopium/GA1, but quiet Peer Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Telescopium/archive1. Mike Peel (talk · contribs) (an astronomer) has given some feedback on the talk page, which I have followed. Anyway, have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Today I'm thankful for a consistent stream of interesting FAs in subjects I wouldn't normally be tuned into. Expect comments by sometime tomorrow; ping me if I don't get around to it. Tezero (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I split the single paragraph in history; rework or revert if you think I did it wrong or, for some reason, shouldn't have split it at all.
that's fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "A small constellation" - By what metric? Number of stars? Number of lightyears separating the farthest stars within it? Ostensible "area" from Earth's perspective? Actual "area" as the sum of a series of triangles drawn among the member stars?
constellations are 2D areas of sky, covering the star patterns plus a defined territory around them. "Small" means a small percentage of the area of the celestial sky compared with larger constellations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • How many stars are in Telescopium? If no specific number is available, how many are estimated?
good question - depends on how you define it, with more powerful telescopes, all constellations have millions of stars. Have added how many stars are visible to the unaided eye in good viewing (urban/rural border area to mag 6.5) to give context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Touche. I was talking about the stars that defined it, though, though perhaps I wasn't reading carefully enough. Tezero (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The centaur in the old star chart makes me think: I'm sure Telescopium is too recent a discovery to be associated with any kind of folklore or heavenly symbolism, but are any of its member stars? I mean, if you don't think this'd be straying from the topic of the article - it just might help if a bit of real-world context, as it were, were given.
It's a good thought, but the stars are too faint to have attracted attention..I've looked.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "spectral class K" - What's a spectral class? At the very least link this, but ideally you might give context as to what this means, perhaps by listing a few other things that are of spectral class K.
they are described as orange giants (orange stars = class K). Can't give examples as no source does that so it'd be sort of OR. I've linked it now - giant star is also linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "127 light years distant" - Distant from what? Also, this is kind of an odd way to begin a sentence.
from us. added now. changed start of sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm quite tired right now, so I'll have to sign off for the night. I'll be back with more, though. Tezero (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks for the input to date - much apprecaited Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeez, sorry, forgot all about this. Anyway:

  • "Epsilon Telescopii is another double star, though this time a true binary system" - ???. Even if the reader could be expected to know what a binary system is, I don't see the context for bringing this fact up.
aah yes, in an older version of the article I think this came right after Delta (which is an optical double) - now it is not contrastive so reworded Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, in both that instance and a later one, "this time" is strange wording.
see previous - both removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "One theory of its origin is that it is the result of a merger between a helium- and a carbon-oxygen white dwarf. If the combined mass does not exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, the former will accrete onto the latter star and ignite to form a supergiant. Later this will become an extreme helium star before cooling to become a white dwarf." - Relevance? This level of detail isn't given for the other stars.
It's an unusual way for a star to form, so detail is interesting (I thought). Also makes article less listy. If above the Chandrasekhar limit, the object would detonate as a supernova. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "RR Telescopii, also designated Nova Telescopii 1948, often called a slow nova is now classified as a symbiotic nova system" - restructure/alter somehow, like "While RR Telescopii ... is often called a slow nova, it is now classified ..."
  • Done this one myself. Tezero (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • White dwarf is linked twice in one paragraph, even though it's referenced several times earlier without any link at all.
whoops! fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "slightly (1.1 to 1.3 times) as massive as the Sun" - You mean "slightly more massive than the Sun", or "about as massive as the Sun"?
the former. fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "This is an unusual distance from the star" - Unusually high or low? Also, this could be worded a little more clearly, e.g. "This is an unusually high/low distance for the brown dwarf to be from HD 191760".
low/close - clarified now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "45000 light-years distant" - Should probably use a comma, and is this in relation to Earth or Theta Arae?
twaeked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, now I'm done. Nice work, though I wish astronomy articles in general had a higher standard of accessibility. Tezero (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I can support now. Nice work all around; I now know slightly further from nothing about constellations. Tezero (talk) 06:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks/much appreciated...I try to make these articles as accessible as possible...quite a challenge Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • File:NGC_6845GALEX.jpg: permission links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
clarified - there are live links in the licencing template. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Only three things: I'd expect to see GRB 980425, IC 4889, and SN 1998bw mentioned in the deep-sky objects section; they're all well-studied. I expect to support after this. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Support. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
nice find on the GRB/SN - added now

Support and comments[edit]

Happy to support, just a couple of points below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • one of twelve... One of several...
this is tricky - flows alright when right next to each other I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ESO-HARPS instrument — I think we need some sort of clue what this is
unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

I looked just at the lead section ... nothing for me to do. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 01:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

thx/appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Note from Ian Rose[edit]

Just a reminder to seek a source review, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

oops, missed this - asking now.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Source review from Laser brain[edit]

  • I noted that you are in the habit of providing page numbers for book sources but not journals. Is there a reason for that? For example, I looked up the Traulsen article and there are page numbers on the PDF.
I'll add page numbers from long journal articles usually but never did it for short ones as a rule. Not sure if there is a clear guideline on this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Fn 39, not sure why the "retrieved" is here, as you don't put it in the fn for other online sources.
formatting mistake - fixed. The referencing for this article was in a format that I don't normally follow but decided to stick with it rather than change all to what I usually do. Was in other format - conformed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In the Smith citation, just the PDF logo is there. In the Toddy citation, the logo is there followed by "(PDF)".
aaah, latter had old PDF parameter in citation format - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Otherwise, looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hoopoe starling[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This extinct bird is interesting but rather obscure, and a thorough review of its scattered literature has only been published this year, so it could finally get a proper article here. The article was recently copyedited thoroughly and became a GA. The choice of infobox image may seem odd, but it is the only known life drawing of this species, and also the only image we have that depicts the bird's crest accurately. Most other available images have some inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I might bump up the extinciton date to the frist paragraph---it's the first thing I find myself wanting to know once it's mentioned that it's extinct.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sexual dimorphism is mentioned in the lead, but I don't see it in the body
It is covered (not by name) in the second paragraph under description, made it a bit clearer by adding the term. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sieur Dubois '​: that final "s" is most likely silent, so this should almost certianly be "Dubois's"
Ok. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Were there no human populations on Réunion before the French? If not, ou might want to state so explicitly so people don't wonder about the native populations.
There was no native population, it had been visited before, but first permanent settlements were French. What if I say "all connected to activities of human settlers on Réunion"? Won't that make it clear that they weren't there before`? FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, "settlers" sounds like "colonists", which doesn't make it clear the island was uninhabited. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
The source doesn't really say anything like what you request. How about the latest addition I made? "all connected to the activities of humans on Réunion, which it survived alongside for two centuries." Though it is not directly stated the islands were uninhabited before some date, I don't see how it could mean anything else. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you're right. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • the island of Réunion and proposed a new binomial, Fregilupus borbonicus: had the name of the island been changed at this time? It may not be immediately obvious that "borbonicus" refers to the earlier name for the island.
Sources about the bird don't say. Isn't it clear from the preceding "then called "Bourbon"? The name is also used in some of the quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
It was a couple paragraphs earlier and in passing, and with the different spelling & pronunciation it could easily go over a reader's head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Should be clearer now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • to the starling family (Sturnidae),: I'm not confident I understand where to italicize and where not to---should "Sturnidae" be italicized?
No, only species and genus names. Family names and such are capitalised. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I see the serial comma in some places and not in others.
Some of these were removed during copy editing, I fixed what I could find... FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The male was generally thought: or "is thought to have been", or has thought changed?
I modified it, but yeah, the problem is that there is no overview of which known specimens are male and female. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weighed 4 oz (113 g): I assume "4 oz" is a rounded figure; perhaps "113 g" should be rounded, too?
That's what the old account says, so I'm not sure if it should be changed? The secondary source just repeats it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
You mean, the sources say 4 oz (113 g)? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is the part: "is four ounces [113 gr]" so the conversion seems to be added. How would you write it instead? FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
If it's right in the source, then just leave it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • during [[austral summer]]: I might shorten this to [[austral summer|summer]] to the avoid repetition
Removed them, there are no articles about those subjects after all... By the way, what's with the reflinks? FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Those were supposed to be <nowiki>...</nowiki>, but I goofed (now fixed). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • after the arrival of man: not a very 21st-century wording
"Humans"? FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • other recently-extinct birds: recent at the time, or recent today?
Both (as this species was one of the last to go extinct from the island), but "recently extinct" generally means something that went extinct within the last few centuries... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That might not come across to the general reader (Wikipedia's target audience). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
What if I just remove "recently"? Perhaps "now-extinct birds"? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think "now-extinct" is fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for comments, will fix these soon... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Seems the first is just disambiguation, seems a bit arbitrary. Will change to hyphenated. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Everything looks fine now, and I'm happy to support. Sorry I forgot to come back earlier. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and no problem. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fregilupus_varius.jpg: what are the dates of death of the authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Added to file description, all dead more than 70 years ago. FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from HalfGig[edit]

  • "iris[disambiguation needed]" needs to be fixed
Fixed, these were added yesterday. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of the references that are PDFs have (PDF), but one does not. This should be fixed. HalfGig talk 01:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

  • I read this on my smartphone - saw a couple of minor things, only found one now, but others were trivial. pretty comprehensive. I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Will look again to see what I missed ...hmmm..but looks fine.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, feel free to point out any issues. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support and suggestion from Jim[edit]

Support. You might want to consider explaining varius. 'varius L. varius various, diverse, variegated (variare to variegate). Jobling, James A (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. p. 399. ISBN 978-1-4081-2501-4. . FWIW, p 164 confirms your etymology of the genus name too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  • This is already in the article, not enough? " and its specific name means "variegated", describing its black-and-white colour." FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Source check[edit]

  • American Committee for International Wild Life Protection 13: is that "13" really part of the name of the publisher?
Maybe some annual thing, I'll remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • MOS:CITE doesn't appear to require it, but it sure would be nice if you could give more specific page references for you sources. I'm thinking particularly of ref#2, cited 17 times to a 75-page article.
I'll try to make it more specific one of these days when I get the time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Made it slightly more specific. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Assuming that "13" is right, source formatting appears to be correct. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Comments from SandyGeorgia
  • ... and having more-curved beaks ... I'm not understanding why a hyphen is needed?
Done during copy eidt, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:DATEOTHER, typically we would use 1726–27 intead of 1726–1727.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed a bunch. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Samples only (I haven't read the article, just a quick flyover for MOS-y stuff). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks <unwatch>! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Comment I looked just at the lead section ... nothing for me to do. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The Who[edit]

Nominator(s): Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The Who are one of the most important rock bands to have an article on Wikipedia, with over a million views a year. I started work on improving it in autumn 2013, getting it to good article status. Since then I've been gradually working on tightening up the prose, the sources and the layout, and the article went through an extensive peer review a few months ago. That has now finished, so I think it's time we had a look to see if it can meet Featured Article status. I await comments with interest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wasted Time R[edit]


Comments. While the lead is factually accurate, it's too much a narrative of releases and events and I don't think it captures what is really important about The Who. A significant percentage of readers never look past the table of contents in an article, and so the lead has got to serve as a self-standing description of the group. Here are some of the things I think are missing and some of the things that could be removed:

  • The lead doesn't describe the group's sound – in particular, the two things that made the group most unique, Townshend's power chords on guitar and Moon's frenetic drumming.
I think the best thing I can do here is pull out something from the introduction of the three main book sources (Marsh, Fletcher, Neill / Kent) and see what they have to say. There's a slight difference on emphasis as the books probably assume you a little about the band to start with, whereas this article should assume no prior knowledge whatsoever. Obviously anything new here needs to be reflected into the body (probably under "Musical style and instruments"). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It only barely alludes to Townshend being the group's songwriter. In fact he is an acclaimed one, and the lead could briefly mention his recurring themes such as age and Meher Baba-based spirituality.
  • It should briefly mention the group's focus on pop art in the early days.
  • It should briefly describe Tommy as the allegorical story of a deaf dumb and blind boy.
  • It should briefly describe Quadrophenia as a rock opera that mirrored the group's four personalities in a look back at the mod movement.
  • Something should briefly be said about the volatile personalities in the group and the infighting and hotel room trashing – more than most groups, this was a vital aspect of their existence at the time.
  • More needs to be said about Who's Next since it's their most popular/best selling album. The lead should mention the innovative use of synthesizers and say that "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" rank in top-rock-songs-ever lists.
  • There's no need to name every album they released in the lead. A Quick One and Who Sell Out don't have to be mentioned by name – instead you could say their early albums experimented with conceptual forms, something like that. I really like Who By Numbers, but at the end of the day it's not a part of the Who story that people most need to know. There's no need to mention by name both of the Kenney Jones-era albums – nor is it necessary to say in the lead where Jones came from.
I think this fell out an earlier review (either GA or one of the PRs; can't remember which) where somebody said all the albums needed to be listed. I agree with you on this point, and I would say that the important singles should be mentioned; "I Can't Explain" - first hit, "My Generation" - first big hit, "Happy Jack" - first US hit, "I Can See For Miles" - first big US hit, then albums from Tommy through to Quadrophenia, maybe "Who Are You" and I think that should suffice. What do you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
As I said earlier, "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" should be mentioned. Mentioning the album Who Are You is useful because it implicitly mentions the title song as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I've redone this bit - have another look and see what you think. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the changes regarding what is named and what is not named are for the better, but I don't agree with all of the characterizations (the significance of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is not that it was a "hit", Quadrophenia is not a "celebration" of anything ...). Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead says Endless Wire was in the top ten of the album charts in the UK and the US - but that's not a metric used for any of the earlier albums (in recent years all it measures is first-week splash). Sales certifications is more appropriate for albums, and in the US it didn't even make gold.
Should we just say it was released and leave it at that? It's the only album they've released in the last 30+ years, so just mention of it should be sufficient in the lead, wouldn't you think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that change suffices. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead should omit future speculation - whether they release another album ("TBA (Summer 2015)" in the Discography section should be removed) or whether they really do retire from touring, time will tell (rock artists are notorious for multiple retirements).
The body did mention this at one point, but the counterpoint source used was the Daily Mirror, so it had to go. I don't know who added "TBA (Summer 2015)" - wasn't me, honest - but that can go right now! As it is I've trimmed the lead down to just mention The Who Hits 50!, which I don't think had been named when that went in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the general problem with the comments on the lead is that I feel it is right on the edge of what is acceptable at WP:LEADLENGTH, so if facts were to be added, something else ought to be taken away to restore balance. Indeed, The Beatles and U2 seem quite acceptable as FAs to have a three-paragraph lead; although the Who has arguably been more active and released more significant work, maybe we should follow suit? I've redone it, cutting down the history to what I think are bare essentials, and adding something from the "Musical Style" and "Legacy and Influence" sections which were under-represented. To be honest, I think the best way forward is for all interested parties to say what they think are the important facets in the lead, then when we have consensus, we can put something around that. How does that sound as a way forward? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with lead length; I think this one should be four paragraphs, not three, given the length of the article. (Other FA articles aren't always the best guide; the lead for Katy Perry manages to never say a single thing about what her music is like or what her artistic persona is!) The part that begins "They have made major contributions ..." is good, and I suggest expanding it with power chords as a compositional, innovative synthesizer use, songwriting themes centered around age, identity, and spiritual meaning, and whatever else you come up with. This is your chance to tell the reader what made the Who different. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't diss Katy Perry too loudly otherwise SNUGGUMS might come up and give you a bit of a slap, but it certainly would be good to get their opinion here. In the meantime, I've put in the use of synths, since doing a bit of work on Won't Get Fooled Again itself has tripped up its obvious contribution. Lyrical themes are another good point to add, specifically that the Who did not do boy / girl love songs at all; although that needs to be added in the article to - the best source I have is the Live at Leeds reissue CD notes that play up "My Generation", dismissing the Beatles and the Stones as "still writing love songs during this period" (which, being late 1965 is actually questionable, but the basic point is sound). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't find Wasted's comments to be offensive/dissing at all, Ritchie, don't worry. However, I couldn't really think of a good way to incorporate that detail in her lead when working on the article (I got it up from a DGA to GA this past June, and up to FA in August). Wasted, I do welcome you to give specific suggestions on how what to say where in the lead for her article and/or perhaps edit it accordingly yourself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

That's it for now, will add more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


Some comments regarding the article body, in roughly appearance order:

  • "Daltrey maintains that his subsequent musical career saved him from a dead-end working man's job,[9] and in 1959 he started the band that was to evolve into the Who." That's an important point about The Who, but the phrasing is awkward. Maybe here give the 1959 fact, and later in the article mention Daltrey's belief, because that was core to his arguments with Townshend in the mid 1970s. (see Marsh as source)
I've moved this to 1975, where Daltrey and Townshend had what can only be described as a major public brawl in the NME, where Daltrey made it clear that the Who had saved him from being a sheet-metal worker and he felt Townshend was unprofessional. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
That makes sense. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The article needs to have a description of "My Generation" the song! It's their early signature song and the stuttered vocal and the "Hope I die before I get old" are both super famous then and now and need to be mentioned.
Done. Marsh also considers the key change significant, so I've added that too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you should have a side box that quotes the whole "People try to put us d-down" verse through to "Hope I die before I get old". It deserves that level of prominence in the Who story. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This has been resolved by means of the audio clip. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The article should have a brief description of "Substitute". The identity confusion lyric is another theme of Townshend's and it shows how he early on was writing on unusual topics.
Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A brief description of what the "A Quick One" concept was about would help.
Do you mean the title track? The background of the album is already there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a brief description of what the title suite is about. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • A little more description of what Tommy is about would help - allegory of mass cults, of rock stars, etc. And "We're Not Gonna Take It" might be mentioned as the most well known song on it after "Pinball Wizard".
Interesting comment this as I remember the GA review also says "we could do with a bit more Tommy". Are you sure your background is the case as documented in sources though - certainly my impression is that the plot is vague and what there is derives from spiritual enlightenment via Meher Baba, plus a bunch of other songs that were kicking around at the time. I think I might have held back a bit on this section as otherwise I could write far more of it, being my favourite period on the group. In the event, I took Tommy (album) to GA instead which seemed to satisfy my "itch". I'll have a look over there and see if there's anything that really stands out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, the article can say that the plot is disjointed but the work is clearly about this and that and another thing, although even Townshend himself was not able to consistently explain it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that Tommy is clearly about anything one way or another - indeed, I would say that the most significant element of the plot is that it's vague and confusing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said above, sales certifications are a better metric of album success than chart position, so you might mention the sales for Who's Next. And as I said above two, you can give best-song-ever list appearances for "Won't Get Fooled Again" and "Baba O'Riley" as well as saying they are staples of classic rock radio.
I've done quite a bit of work on Who's Next recently (it's at GAN now) and moved some stuff over from there that covers this area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
There's still more that can be said here. It tells me that someone plays a violin solo on "Baba O'Riley" but nothing regarding what the song is about or the minimalist influence that is responsible for half its title. And the article should mention somewhere that Townshend sang lead parts now and then during the Who's career, with the "teenage wasteland" refrain being a good example. And if I didn't know already, this article wouldn't tell me that "Won't Get Fooled Again" is an 8 1/2-minute epic about questioning political involvement that features what many have said is the greatest synthesizer in rock, the greatest drum entrance in rock, and most of all the greatest scream in rock. These are things that the reader of this article should know even if they don't click through to any album article or any song article. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I have to disagree - if you asked the Sex Pistols what their favourite Who songs were, they wouldn't be anything off Who's Next, but they'd be the mid 60s singles. The 69-71 period is my favourite era of the Who, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it dominates everything else. Obviously you can't say such loaded POV terms such as "the greatest synthesizer in rock" in a GA, let alone an FA, so you'd have to go to good sources and qualify who said what, which would start to introduce topic drift just to get the claim to stick. Even then I don't think there's enough non-fan opinions to make it stick. Having done a quick straw poll around friends, I get the impression that for non-Who fans and non-rock fans, it's best known today as "that theme from CSI". I don't think I'd even include that much information in Who's Next article itself. I think the best thing to do is ask a friend who isn't a particular Who fan and see what their response is - that would give us a good idea of what the reader requirements are. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no competition here - the early singles were innovative and greatly influential as you say. I'm sure you can come up with sources that describe the scream - a Google Books search shows a bunch of them. Just to take one off my shelves, John Swenson in the New Rolling Stone Record Guide (1983, page 544) says "His [Daltrey's] scream at the climax of "Won't Get Fooled Again" is a moment of pure rock transcendence." Wasted Time R (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That's already in the article, the caption with the audio clip (under "Musical Style and Influence"), that uses a caption from Marsh's book, that says "the greatest scream of his career", with a sample to show it, and also showing the organ / synth, Moon's drum roll and Townshend's power chord. Sums it all up nicely. Also, the article is over 60K, which is right on the limit of WP:SIZE. So we have to use summary style, which we do as Who's Next and "Won't Get Fooled Again" are spinout articles, as expected. However, I think superlatives are still a bit too POV for an FA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Quadrophenia description should briefly mention that the album and its musical scheme reflects each of the four personalities of the group.
Done. I think a description of what the themes are and what personalities they reflect belongs in that album's own article, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay. But your addition doesn't quite make clear that the four different personalities of the Who members are also the four different aspects of Jimmy's personality that he is struggling to reconcile. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • There's too much detail on the session musicians for the Tommy film - doesn't have that much to do with The Who and can be handled in the soundtrack article.
Okay. I left in Kenny Jones as his tie to the Who is much stronger, and Elton John as he had the hit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • But an important effect of the Tommy film is that it gave Daltrey a new power base in his arguments within the group. (See Marsh as source)
Are you sure about that? I thought it was more to do with Lambert and Stamp being fired as managers, who Townshend sided with far more than Daltrey. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I've been looking through the Marsh book and I can't find what I remember being there. So ignore this until and unless I do. 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Where is says "(except for Daltrey, who retired to bed early)", you should add that Daltrey always did that, to protect his voice and because he was the most serious in the group about their professional responsibilities. (See Marsh as source)
It doesn't specifically say it at that point (p.432) but it is worth adding somewhere earlier. I'm just not sure where. Certainly it was evident by 1967 that he wasn't get involved in hotel trashing and never did. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Daltrey punched out Townshend a different time, in a studio session, didn't he?
Did he? Hmmm, have to have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I was confused, what you describe is what I was thinking of. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In "The Godfathers of Punk" you should delink Punk - links within quotes are bad from and it's linked right after that in the sentence anyway.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You could say that the songwriting on Who By Numbers" presaged Townshend's solo career approach.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You could add to Moon being absent from "Music Must Change" is because he couldn't handle the 6/8 time signature.
I think that's done, though I can't find what the MOS says about describing time signatures (if anything). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
You could use {{music|time|6|8}}, though it doesn't seem to be recommended anywhere (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music recommends using the {{music}} template, but doesn't mention time signatures). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the description of the Quadrophenia film, it's misleading to say it starred Sting. He down in the billing and basically has a small part, but one that made an impact with. Phil Daniels is clearly the star.
I swapped the sentences around, and changed this to "played" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The fact that the Shepperton performance was Moon's last is in the article twice.
I've changed the second one to "the Shepperton concert" (the second mention is important in context that it's on The Kids Are Alright) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Join Together album should be linked.
Done. I tend to forget about adding wikilinks because half the time I get a message from DPL Bot telling me I've done it wrong ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The article should briefly identify Zak Starkey as Ringo's son and mention Moon being a friend of Starr back in the day and teaching Zak drums.
I'll pull something out of Fletcher's Moon biography that says this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Where it talks about Townshend playing acoustic guitar it should emphasize that he excelled at this - witness "Pinball Wizard" among others - and it should add that Townshend used a flamenco technique in his playing of acoustics.
Done, though I've gone for the slightly milder and less POV of it just appearing on albums from Tommy onwards more. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Where it says "at the MGM Grand Garden Arena." the period should be a comma.
I've taken out the full stop altogether. Every time you remove a comma from an article, Eric Corbett cheers Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Beatles were fans of the Who and appreciated their live sound when on tour." - unclear whose tour you are talking about.
The specific bit in the source is "the big sound they had discovered on tour while listening to groups like The Who". Changed to "appreciated their sound". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be worth noting that The Who never won a Grammy during their main career, only maybe in retrospect.
  • Did Entwistle really ever play keyboards on a Who record (as opposed to one of his own)?
Yes, he is credited as piano on the liner notes for Who's Next and for synthesizer on Who Are You. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Right you are. Guess it's been a long time since I looked at the back cover of my Who LPs! Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Footnote 193 uses The Who's official site as a source. Generally not a good idea if you can find a third-party source for the same material.
Yes, I've started taking out the official site elsewhere, as I've discovered it goes out of date very quickly (being revamped every six months or so) and has a tendency not to transfer to the Wayback Machine very well, so they have a high risk of becoming unverifiable very quickly. I'll make a point of removing all citations for it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I've replaced this with Marsh, but there are several other references to the official site, mostly (then) contemporary press releases added in Wikipedia's lifetime. I'll have to revisit this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Footnote 54 uses use the fn:pageno format, but that isn't used for the books and seems inconsistent. You could just include the three pages of the liner notes that you use in the base cite.
As this only cites "My Generation"'s chart position, I think the best thing is to pull that from a book instead. Then only page 5 of the CD liner notes (basically describing Live at Leeds) is used, negating the need for {{rp}} Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's it for now, although I might think of more things later. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC) A few more:

  • There should really be somewhere a capsule portrayal of The Who's stage act appearance: Daltrey strutting on stage, spinning the microphone on its cord in the air; Townshend windmilling the power chords and leaping in the air; Moon leaning over his drum kit, bashing it with abandon; and Entwistle standing still, passive and expressionless.
I am starting to go towards agreeing with this, and the last paragraph in "Musical style and equipment" could accommodate this. The tricky bit now is to find a good source that summarises it as being a general overview of the band's entire career, rather than one specific era - not to mention the fact that the group have 35 years of post-Moon activity, not all of which can be written off as being insignificant. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a good quote on the group that you could use in Marsh's entry on The Who in the 1980 Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll, page 286: "Their spats and feuds, public and private, were the essence of Who mythology."
  • The article should mention that The Who were the halftime act at Super Bowl XLIV in 2010, since that is a very high-profile appearance in the US.
Seriously? I can do (it probably got trimmed out during a purge I did before I took the article to GA) but I don't really think it compares with the Marquee, Monterey, Woodstock or the Isle of Wight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, seriously. It definitely compares with some of the events already listed in the post-Entwistle era. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Done - since Rolling Stone said the gig was in front of 100 million people, I agree it should go in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In "Legacy and influence", no links inside the quote in the side box.
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

That's it for now. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick holding reply, thanks for the comments so far. I've just been a bit busy elsewhere this week (both on and off wiki), and I have a few GA reviews I need to finish off as priority, but hopefully I'll get round to tackling all of this lot soon. I think mainly sorting out the lead looks to be the difficult bit; everything else doesn't look too insurmountable providing I find a spare evening or two and round up my collection of book sources. More later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I did realize a major omission though:
I've never been a fan of audio clips - not so much their presence in articles but rather the requirement to get the FUR right. However, it will solve a number of issues - a "My Generation" sample would allow us to caption it with the "Hope I die..." lyric and provide a much needed break in the text in a section of the article where images are sparse. Then the riff from "Pinball Wizard" would document the acoustic playing, and the end of "Won't Get Fooled Again" (about 7:42 - 7:47) would sum up synths, Moon's drumming, power chords and Daltrey's vocal projection all in one hit. How does that sound as a first draft of ideas? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Some new comments from me that I didn't think of previously.

  • It would be worth mentioning that The Who were an unusually self-reflective group thanks to Townshend. In other words, he spent a lot of time thinking about what it meant to be the Who and what their role should be towards their audience. This shows up in the later parts of Tommy. And it's no accident that the Who appear as a character in the Quadrophenia story. This is a consistent theme of the Marsh book and this almost obsessive self-reflection on the part of Townshend is one of the things that made the Who different.
  • The portrayal of Moon isn't quite right in this article, which makes him out to be the stereotypical overindulging, self-destructive rock star. Which is was, but he was also a classic British eccentric, often completely dressing the part of various extravagant characters and the like. That's partly why the British press labelled him "Moon the Loon". There's a good quote on one of the photo plates in the Marsh book about this, which I don't have in front of me right now.
I felt this belonged more in Moon's own article, but what I think might be a good idea is to create a new "Personal relationships" section that discusses how the members of the Who and associates got on (or, rather, didn't). I think we ought to cover the paradox that is that the Who always seemed to hate each other and were always leaving, yet the classic band stayed together for as long as it could. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure it needs a separate section - the infighting is really intertwined with the history of the group. The article on Moon can go into his persona as an eccentric in more detail, but it also deserves mention here to give a fully rounded portrayal. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Are there some respectable critical voices that dissent on the Who, who think they are overrated? If so, their views should be alluded to in the article. Unfortunately I can't think of any offhand but maybe others know of some. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Elements of their career that have been covered negatively (eg: 1968 Australia tour, Quadrophenia first tour, "The Who On Ice") are in the article, and from the early 80s to the late 90s I don't think the Who were as popular as they were or are now. Possibly a lack of strong criticism stems from Townshend being the first one to criticise the band before anyone else gets a look in! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you do have a point with that last bit. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I seem to remember the GA review looked at images carefully to the extent that two got deleted on Commons as a direct result. :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from John[edit]

Support, subject to getting a few audio clips as above. Prose looks ok, sourcing looks good (though I haven't done any spot-checks). --John (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Still tending to support but I would like to see the valid concerns of Snuggums and Curly addressed. --John (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • Support a truly fine piece of work. Well-deserving of FA! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I still have a number of unaddressed comments on the talk page. Perhaps I should move them here, but for now I have a few new comments on the lead:
I haven't got round to looking at those, but pretty much all of them are requests for additions for content, which, on a 62K article that is on the limit of WP:SIZE I wouldn't be happy without a consensus, particularly as some (such as Jimmy Page playing on "I Can't Explain" which Marsh says is false, or adding non-notable tribute bands) I think would introduce problems. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if Page on "I Can't Explain" is disputed, then it should be left out, but some of the other stuff should go in—especially the naming of the band. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand, the bit about Townshend and Barnes coming up with the name is in the article. I have put in Page as playing on the B-side, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I meant about Entwistle or Moon coming up with the name Led Zeppelin. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
How does that relate to the Who more than, say, Ann Margaret (which got removed)? I do want to add something about Moon leaving the Who in '66, but I can't remember if this ties in with that incident. If it does, it can go in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Their best known line-up consisted of lead singer Roger Daltrey, guitarist Pete Townshend, bassist John Entwistle and drummer Keith Moon: this wording might best fit a band that had a revolving door of members that went through a "classic" period (think Yes). This lineup is not just the "best known", though---it's the canonical one
Have you met the Best known for IP? Somebody's changed to "classic" but I'm not really comfortable with that, classic to whom? What does classic mean? Is it something to do with classical music? Can anyone think of a better word? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours, before stabilising around a line-up of Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon.: I might drop this from the lead, or at lest shorten it to the first half as we've just been told Daltrey, Townshend, Entwistle and Moon were the classic lineup.
Yes, let's drop it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • all written by Townshend: it's not clear from the wording that Townshend also wrote "I Can't Explain". Since we're shortly after given "lead songwriter and visionary Townshend" I might drop "all written by Townshend" anyways
Dropped Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • from a hit-singles band into a respected rock act: it's not clear why "hit-singles band" and "respected rock act" would be mutally exclusive
I'm not sure what you mean, but to give you some examples, Herman's Hermits are a "hit-singles band" while Jethro Tull are a "respected rock act" (deliberately picking bands the Who have toured with). Does that clarify things? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I can see how a band may be classidied as one or the other, but I'm not convinced they're mutually exclusive. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This might need more context. Certainly "pop" and "rock" became quite different during the late 60s. I'm not sure what to suggest though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
There were singles-oriented artists and album-oriented ones, but those don't correlate with being "respected". The Animals, The Young Rascals, and Creedence Clearwater Revival were all singles-oriented artists from this era. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Fletcher's Moon biography has quite a good comment on this circa .p152, talking about the 1965 NME Poll Winners Concert - "a temporary coming together of every notable act in the country before they diverged, some progressing into rock bands that would give the music the depth required .... others to tread water as pop groups ... until they eventually faded" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
We're going off-track a bit - what changes need to be made to the article here? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 1969's rock opera Tommy: from this wording it comes off as "just another rock opera"; probably want ot mention the "rock opera" as a Who thang
I'm not sure what you mean? I'm concerned anything more than just saying it was a rock opera would be POV Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Even if there are proposed precursors, the Who are still the band credited with the first successful rock opera[11][12][13][14][15][16] Might want to mention the Tommy influence on Jesus Christ Superstar as well.[17] Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
But what about S.F. Sorrow? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
And S. F. Sorrow was preceded by The Story of Simon Simopath Tommy popularized the term, and the term is associated largely with the Who. Who else put out rock operas with the impact of Tommy or Quadrophenia? Notice how everyone compares Zen Arcade to Tommy or Quadrophenia or---oh, nothing else. It sure ain't because the album sounds like the Who—it's because the Who virtually own the term. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Curly Turkey here - it doesn't matter exactly which came first, mention "rock opera" to any general rock fan and the two they will first mention are these two. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
So what changes should be made? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't go as far as Britannica, which opens their oarticle ont he band with "the Who, Who, the [Credit: Jim Summaria ( rock group that was among the most popular and influential bands of the 1960s and ’70s and that originated the rock opera.]"—but I'd definitely throw in a line (say in "Legacy") that they are credited with popularizing the rock opera and that the term is strongly associated with the band. Then I'd mention that in passing in the lead. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • abandoned in favour of 1971's Who's Next: Who's Next was made up of material left over from Lifehouse, wasn't it? From the wording it sounds like they tossed and Lifehouse and took on a separate project instead.
Well My Wife was nothing to do with it, the key track, "Pure And Easy" wasn't on the album, and Lifehouse itself was supposed to be much more than just an album. Anyway, I've reworded things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • You might want to mention it when albums are doubles
I'm concerned this would add too much information to the lead that is already quite big - I'm more in favour of removing things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it does give the impression of just how big these projects were. It's surprising that it's not even mentioned in the body, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Mention in the body, not the lead. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Something about album length would be useful. I've added that to Tommy but not for Quadrophenia until I can find a source that talks about the relevance of its length. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's such a source that talks about the significance of there being four sides to the album, thus it needed to be a double. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
That's the Richie Unterberger source. He's using quotations that are also in Marsh's book, documenting the decision to drop Rock is Dead - Long Live Rock due to it being too close to "Who's Next Part II" and Townshend deciding to do something else. That's not actually talking about Quadrophenia as such. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The group continued to play live regularly, including the Quadrophenia and More tour in 2012 and the Who Hits 50 tour in 2014.: fine for the body, but naming these tours in the lead I think is RECENTISM and UNDUE
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • They have been cited as an influence by several punk rock and mod bands: and hard rock and heavy metal in general
That will need to go in the body and cited to reliable sources, though Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I gave you a bunch of sources on the talk page. This is something the article really needs—as it stands it gives the impression that their main legacy is the impact they had on punk, which is seriously unbalanced. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably the best thing to do here is be bold and add to the article, then I can check the sources and the context and make a balanced opinion on it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think someone else mentioned it above, but something should be said about their sound, and something about power chords
I'm really not sure what exactly can be said here, plus their sound is quite varied when you listen to all of it (eg: I Can't Explain vs The Song Is Over vs "Guitar and Pen" vs "Underture" on Tommy vs Sunrise on The Who Sell Out). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Sure there's variety, but the great big, extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords of "I Can See For Miles", "Pinball Wizard", "Baba O'Reilly", and "Who Are You" are about the first thing that comes to many people's heads when you mention the Who, and a central part of their legacy. That would be a major oversight if left out of the lead. You could always mention that there was a variety while noting the sounds typically associated with them. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there are "extremely high-volume, overdriven power chords" on "I Can See For Miles". Of the four songs you mention, for me the first is the psychedelic-fused guitar and drums, the second is the acoustic, the third is the synthesizer and the fourth is also the synthesizer. So I'm sorry, but this sounds just like expressing a POV which we can't use. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The verses of "I Can See for Miles" are all power chords—great big crashing power chords that are great fun to windmill to—and Townsend promoted the song as the loudest single ever.[18][19][20] (and here's a great quote: "The loudest record I know is certainly The Who's original single of 'I Can See For Miles', which is so overpowering that my dog buries her head in her paws if I take it out of the sleeve"
I've come across the June 1994 issue of Guitar World, which proclaims "'I Can See For Miles' was pivotal in makin the power chord a central part of the rock guitar vocbulary" (p 47). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
And on p 57 "these rot/fifth, root/fifth/root chords are known as 'power chords'. As the Who grew in popularity, power chords became synonymous with the name Pete Townshend". There's some other good stuff in there. I'll come back with a few suggestions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Need to mention something about their stage show: Daltrey swinging his mic, Townshend doing his windmills
I think this would make the lead too long. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It could hardly be less important than the fact that one of their hit singles was used as a TV show theme. I think a lot of people would be surprised to see nothing about it—this is a band with a reputation, and their stage show is a central part of that reputation. I could see dropping "The Who developed from an earlier group, the Detours", "a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996," and ", thwarting plans for a new album" in its favour. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree, sorry. Can anyone else express an opinion on this? There is a bit more about the mic cable stuff in the body now, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I can see leaving out the mic cable stuff, but windmilling? I see that at far more leadworthy than any of the three snippets I mentioned above. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
What specific changes do you think should go in? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • including the theme music for the television series CSI: recentism and UNDUE again; ten years from now readers will be thinking "CS-What?"
I'm afraid you're showing your age there! CSI has been around for 14 years and is described on "the most popular dramatic series internationally". I did some market research amongst peers off-wiki to ask them what songs by the Who they recognised and a common theme from under 30s was the CSI themes. Plus this article is linked from the lead of CSI's main article, so do you consider mention of the Who there to be WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE? For a younger generation, it's important enough to add as a footnote to the lead in order to jog their memory. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm showing more my lack of interest in TV (though my wife does watch CSI). I'll admit I'm perhaps not qualified in that particular area and let others decide if this point is really lead-worthy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it was taken out, so I'll take that as a consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

All said and done, I think the problem now is a balance between FA criteria 1b ("neglects no major facts or details") and 4 ("focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail") which I think will require consensus. Plus any new prose will need to be checked against the rest of the FA criteria. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Not necessarily suggesting it as a source, but you may be amused to read this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Just in general, I think including a comprehensive depiction of what made The Who different and so highly valued is more important than worrying about the article length. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
We just need to make sure whatever content is added meets the FA criteria and is closely copyedited for flow and sources checked over - jus' saying. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Did the development of the Marshall stack somehow get cut from the body? I could've sworn it was there before, but now the first mention of Marshalls is Hendrix's stack at Monterey. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, I see it comes late in the article. Something about this needs to be mentioned in the general history of the band---it almost comes across as if Hendrix invented the Marshall stack the way it's introduced. Curly Turkey ¡gobble!
  • Okay, I've been WP:BOLD and added I pile of stuff, though I understand your concerns about length. I don't think any of the stuff I've added is fluff, though. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope, your additions all look good and exactly what we need to get out of the logjam - thanks! I've expanded on a few things. I want to add a bit more to the "relationships" section per the comment in there. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd integrate the information on "personal relationships" section into "history"- not one band article I've ever seen has such a section, let alone those that are FA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

  • See WP:DATEOTHER-- typically the final year in a date range is abbreviated to two digits.
  • Prose
  • The Who occasionally re-formed for live appearances such as Live Aid in 1985, a 25th anniversary tour in 1989 and a tour of Quadrophenia in 1996, before resuming regular touring in 1999, with drummer Zak Starkey.
Drummer feels stuck on to the end of an unrelated thought.
I wonder if we should simply take Starkey out of the lead altogether. Although Starkey gets the most coverage in sources, no other touring members are mentioned, including Rabbit who's been touring keyboardist for the majority of shows since 1979. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:NBSP reviewed needed throughout (sample 100 million in lead, top 50, 32 tablets, etc.)
I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Have a look at WP:NBSP. Places where numbers and the noun they modify need to be together should have a non-breaking space to avoid screen wrap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • He was expelled from school aged 15 ... expelled from school at age 15, or when he was 15?
Doesn't that mean the same thing? I'm confused Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Dawson later left after frequently arguing with Daltrey. ... later ... after ... awkward
Yes that should simply be "left" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:MOSLQ errors, sample was "so much better than the Who it was embarrassing." ... please review throughout.
That's a verbatim quotation from Tony Fletcher's book - what's the issue? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It has to do with how it's introduced into the sentence. Compare He said, "That movie's totally rad." to He said the film was "totally rad". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The punctuation on those should be outside the quote. Have a careful look at WP:MOSLQ for the distinction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting - my take on that is that the punctuation never goes inside the quotation unless it is part of the quotation. So in the example above, if the phrase "totally rad" ended a sentence in the source, I would put the full stop inside the quotation marks. I can't remember where I picked that up from. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In addition, Jones' consistent and precise drumming was very different from Moon's wild and unpredictable playing. Is that a fact, or an opinion that should be attributed to the author who holds it?
Changed to " Jones' drumming style was very different from Moon's and this drew criticism within the band." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:SIZE: the article has almost 12,000 words of readable prose, and there do seem to be areas where some trimming might be possible. As one example, the "Guitars" section discusses Townshend in depth, when he has his own article. "Bass", on the other hand, is shorter and focused on the the group.
I think unfortunately this is a deal breaker; a majority of edits since the FA review started have been requests to add content (specifically against criteria 1b), largely from Curly Turkey and from a lesser extent Wasted Time R. As you can see, I have expressed concern over WP:SIZE but consensus is that had not been an issue. John has done a fairly substantial copyedit on the article already and removed some fat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
John's copyedit was before I added any of the stuff I did. I think another thorough copyedit will help bring this down—as for the guitar stuff, some of it could go (I've removed the bit on Townshend's signature SG), and I'm sure it could be tightened up, but a lot of that stuff really is the band's legacy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read most of the article (just a MOS flyover), but overall I suggest MOS attention and some prose tightening with an eye towards trimming the article. I also quite a few samples of statements that are positioned as fact when they may be the opinion of a given source; a runthrough with an eye towards attribution of opinions would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't get behind MOS stuff, in all honesty it just give me a feeling to me to walk away and find something else to edit. Can you recommend some scripts, or can somebody else tackle this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If you get everything else worked out, and only MOS issues are holding you up, then please ping me and I will run through. Of course, I'll keep my fingers crossed that maybe someone else will first, since it's time consuming :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll have a look and see what I can do. I'm not trying to argue against your comments, on the contrary they are good suggestions to make the article even better, just I struggle with getting time on here while trying to balance work, family and everything else that goes on, which makes committing the necessary time to work on FA quality prose hard to impossible. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Dank[edit]

I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

More Turkey[edit]

Okay, I'm going to take a crack at trimming the article. I'll try to do it in small edits so anything you disagree with you can easily revert. I'm leaving the lead til I'm finished. I'll probably take a few days, as it is a long article, and there are other things I want to do, too. I'm going to leave a few more comments here, because I know you're eager to hear my lovely voice.

  • on hearing the guitar work of Duane Eddy, he moved to the bass: Eddy played guitar---in what way did he inspire Entwistle to give up guitar?
  • a more proficient musician, having been playing semi-professionally for two years at that point: by mid-1961, hadn't Daltrey been playing semi-professionally for two years as well?
  • Probably should mention the two-chord nature of "My Generation", which I think is a lt more notable than the key changes
  • were not meant to be taken literally: the line seems to assume the reader knows that peole were taking them literally (and they were---stick it to the man!) Should clarify this.
  • My Generation was released in late 1965: a momentous occasion like this probably deserves a month of release
  • When "Rael" is mentioned it's prbably a good idea to mention its importance as a rock opera
  • didn't there used to be a description of how the Marshall stack came to be? That really needs to be in the article, and it should be introduced in the history part so readers understand the significance of Hendrix showing up at Monterey with a Marshall stack.
  • Townshend had stopped using drugs: but it was never mentioned he used them
  • The description of "Pinball Wizard" is lacking---we're told it was written to impress a journalist, but we learn nothing of what it sounds like, its chart success, or the fact that it preceded the album's release. This is one of the group's best-known songs, and the article glosses over it. I'd ditch the journalist stuff and talk about the song and its success.
  • with gigs at weekends: is "at weekends" a BrEng thing?
  • the link for the Life quote is incorrect
  • I assume the Who's reluctance to perform at something as big as Woodstcok was because of the hippie thing---should be explicit
  • They decided a live album would help demonstrate how different the sound at their gigs was to Tommy, and set about listening to the hours of recordings they had accumulated. Townshend baulked at the prospect of doing so,: so, the band thought it would be a good idea except for Townsend, or did Townshend htink it was a good idea until he listened to the tapes? Never mind, I've cut all this.
  • Two newspapers and the BBC consider Leeds one of the best rock albums of all time? Seems a strange set---isn't there a source that makes a more general claim about how the album is regarded?
  • The show was abandoned for an "oldies" set: as in Who favourites?
  • that former Beatles and Rolling Stones manager Allen Klein had bought a stake in his publishing company. A settlement was reached, but Townshend was upset and disillusioned that Klein had attempted to take ownership of his songs.: So Klein buying a stake in Townshend's publishing company meant he was trying to take ownership of his songs? I think this needs to be reworded or better explicated.
  • he passed out in a doorway: the doorway of the club or elsewhere?
  • if he could stand and walk: so he was able to stand and walk?
  • By this point, Moon was so unhealthy that the Who conceded it would be difficult for him to cope with touring.: was this the reason for not touring, or is it incidental?
  • wondering if he was no longer a visionary: God, this makes him sound so full of himself
  • Should make explicit the connection between the Who's reputation for volume and Townshend's tinnitus.
  • I notice sometimes you do "In Smallville, Kentucky, they" and sometimes "In Smallville, Kentucky they"; I also see a mix of serial commas and non-serial commas. You'll have to decide on which styles you want for the article.
  • where Townshend injured his arm on-stage: I know I sound like a broken record, but I really thin kyou should state the nature of the injury
  • they had acquired new equipment, including earpieces, that allowed Townshend to perform: the same ones recommended by Young and the audiologist? Never mind, I cut this.
  • The Quadrophenia and More toured started in 2010 and lasted until 2013? Just double checking---that's one heck of a long tour for a bunch of old farts!
  • "Irish" Jack Lyons said,: who? And why do we care? This quote has no context
  • His trademark sound with the band has been a characteristic scream, as heard at the end of "Won't Get Fooled Again".: that's an awesome scream, but... is it really his "trademark"? How often does he let one out?
  • favouring down strokes and: did he really favour downstrokes that much? This makes him sound like Johnny Ramone.
  • The description of Jones' drumming doesn't make sense---it was a sharp contrast while echoing Moon's drumming, and Moon was his teacher?
  • The Who have been called "The Godfathers of Punk": every band and its dog has been called "The Godfathers of Punk"...
  • I'm thinking the whole third paragraph of "Media" could be summed up by simply mentioning the band's songs have featured in films and video games.
  • More to come... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Whew!—okay, I've managed to shave about 7k from the article (more than 10%, from 66k to 59k). Ritchie333, please take a look at what I've done to ensure I haven't distorted the meaning of anything or dropped something you feel is important. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I think these changes make the article worse. For example, Live At Leeds has been consistently documented as one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful live albums, deserving of a GA itself if I can get round to doing it, and it is now reduced to one sentence, saying "Live at Leeds was an album recorded at Leeds", which is a tautology. So, I don't think this FA nomination is going to close successfully. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but am pretty sure that while people are able to withdraw, they can't oppose their own nominations. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay I've cancelled out that but this review has just cemented my view that FAs and me just do not mix. Now, let me think about getting Genesis to GA instead (don't rush, I need to buy some books first). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
If this doesn't succeed, you can always come back to FAC later on. This article definitely deserves to be FA sooner or later. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, talk about disappointing. For the record, here's what I cut from the Live at Leeds paragraph–none of which contributes to an understanding of the album as "consistently documented as one of the most critically acclaimed and commercially successful live albums": it retains "The album is viewed by several critics including The Independent, The Telegraph and the BBC, as one of the best live rock albums of all time" and removes out-of-scope details such as the Hull recording, the number of tracks, and the CD bonus tracks released deaceds later (not only out of scope but out of chronology). I'm at a loss as to what you're objecting to, and I've already invited you to revert anything you disagree with. Are you officially withdrawing? I'm hoping the answer's "no". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Science Stories[edit]

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

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

Image check - all OK

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Comment I looked just at the lead section ... nothing for me to do. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to hear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support with a very few comments:

  • Again, suggest linking digest format.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Was "Survival" a full-length novel? I'm only asking because I'm curious - and because I wondered whether Erisman intended to feature a novel-length piece for each issue?
    It appears to have been about 60 pages, which would make it a bit short for a novel, but well within the range that would be advertised as a "lead novel". None of the sources comment on whether it was policy to have a lead novel, though, so I don't think I can either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    I thought not, and you're right, 60 pages is a little short. It's interesting to me that there was a market for sf writers (and others) in the pulps. Anyway, I enjoy reading these. Thanks for doing this nice series. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I broke a sentence in two here because I had some trouble getting through it all. There might be a better way of doing it though.
    That looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all. Thanks for another interesting read! Victoria (tk) 02:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

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

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

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

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

Image check[edit]

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

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

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

I agree up to a point, and although much of the descriptive stuff is obvious, I've tried to double check where I have doubts. Williamson, for example, gets the name of one of the Victorian glassmakers wrong. If I have doubts about the facts and can't verify (or if they are challenged) I'll remove them. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Pevsner et al. (1985) cited but not in sources.
  • Most short cites end with periods but a few don't.
  • I though I'd checked these, I think I've got them all now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Braddick 2008 or 2009?
  • oclc numbers are nice for books without a isbn
  • Scott - published by George Brown in 1907 and White Lion Publishers, 1975. Which is it?
  • Copy is so battered I hadn't spotted it was the later facsimile Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 6 "British Listed Buildings" in spite of its name appears to be a commercial site with adverts. The same information appears to be available from the English Heritage site - currently Ref 20.
  • Starkey, Julia. St Helen's Church... a short tour Ashby-de-la-Zouch:St Helen's Church What sort of publication is this? What makes this reliable?
  • It's the current official church guide, sold in the church. I accept that it may not be totally reliable , and I'll double-check her claims
I've found the leaflet on the church website. The author's first name is given as Julie and not Julia. It is an attractive leaflet but isn't a suitable source for the church history. Aa77zz (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • the core of the present building mainly dates from 1474 - surely it took more than a year to build.
  • "Domesday records that a priest was resident in Ashby," Not sure about this construction - Domesday isn't a person.
  • "An inspection at the end of the eighteenth century commented on the dirty transept walls" - Can an "inspection" comment?
  • "and is aligned at 25° north of east.[12][13]" Reference 12, Thompson (1927–1928), contains a detailed plan with a compass rose indicating that the church is only 10 degrees from an EW alignment.
  • The two refs were each referencing one half of the sentence, it's Starkey that says 25 degrees. In the interests of OR, I took alignments at several points inside and outside the church. None were less than 25, and most were nearer 30. I just copied the arrow direction in Williams without measuring it, but it looks as if his draughtswoman got it bang on with the angle you measured. I've separated the two refs, but given the OR and possible errors of my estimates, I'm inclined to keep both the referenced 25 (near enough) and the depicted angle in my plan. Even if the LAHS plan was correct, it would still be an exceptional deviation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
OK - I've done my own OR - screen capture of google earth and then measure angle in Photoshop. The result is 27.5 (+/- 0.5) degree. Thus Thompson is wrong and 25 degree is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A heretical thought: I think one could say that the church axis is almost 30 degrees from EW without a reference. It is not too dissimilar to saying that Ashby lies 18 miles from Leicester - and is obvious from a cursory glance at a map. Aa77zz (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about long delay, I'm back now. I accept what you say,but since there is a source that 25, I'm reluctant to contradict that with a measurement, but I'm open to persuasion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "the same time as that part of the tower, making it the oldest of its kind in the UK" - Starkey. What sources does Starkey cite?
I've struggled with this. I'm pretty sure she's right, but I'm still looking for a RS source. Similarly, I know what the type is, but struggling to RS that as well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Removed claim of oldest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The arch gateway at the western end of the churchyard bears a skull and crossbones, warning of a plague pit nearby in which the victims of the 1645 outbreak were interred." - What are Starkey's sources? How does she know the age and the significance of the skull and crossbones? (How old is the gateway?)
removed claim as to meaning. Visually, the gate is of mixed age, but the deaths heads look to be of the right age (OR) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The chancel east window contains arms of Richard I and Edward I which are among the earliest stained glass in existence." This needs a good source. English Heritage don't claim this.
Removed claim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Kirkland of Huddersfield." Organ manufacturers are well documented. There was an organ manufacturer of this name in Wakefield (14 miles away) from around 1875. The firm made a large number of organs - see Kirkland on the National Pipe Organ Register.
Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "It was first repaired in 1824,[26]" Ref 26 is National Pipe Organ Register. I cannot see the 1824 date.
You need to click on the link in "buildings found" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be a problem with the dates. According to the NPOR website Kirkland was only active from around 1874 ie 50 years after the 1824 repair. The NPOR do not specify the maker or the date of the St Helen's organ - but the "Buildings found" box has a cryptic mention of Kirkland:
"Gatward notebooks Gatward, Willson Bradley Vol=05 Page=102 Kirkland; 3m/p [MusSt 1880 /08]".
I haven't tried to decode this. Perhaps Kirkland repaired the organ. I assume some of this refers to the British Organ Archive records. Also, how do we know that 1824 was the "first" repair? First recorded repair? What does your source, Williams (1980) pp. 7–9 have to say? Aa77zz (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Given the uncertainty about the organ's date, I've removed the 1824 date and stuck with the more recent restorations, verified by Williams and a brass plate on the organ itself. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "the earliest glass is German, Swiss and Flemish work" Specify roundels in modern windows? English Heritage are more careful with "that are said to have been brought from Farleigh Hungerford (Somerset)"
  • "living" - needs a link?
linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The new, larger church included a nave with tower and aisles, and chapels adjoining the chancel.[6]" with tower?
Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Interior views - iPhones are not ideal for photographing the interior of churches. I've lightened the shadows (but one can't polish a turd). User:Diliff has taken a number of impressive church interiors but lives in London.
The lighting is invariably awful in this church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Sthelenscolor-02final.jpg appears very slightly crooked - the north wall appears to drop to the right. The plan in the Thompson article indicates that the walls should be square. The direction of the North arrow in the sketch is 30 degrees from vertical - rather than 25 degrees mentioned in the text and 10 degrees in the Thompson plan. I also notice that the buttresses mid-way along the walls to the north and south of the tower are denoted as modern in Thompson but as 14-15th century in your plan. Is this a change in Williams 1980?
The misalignment at least shows that I didn't copy it. I'm reluctant to redo to fix a minor error. I think we have dealt with the angle above. Yes, and William's draughtswoman shows more detail on this feature so I'm inclined to follow her unless you feel that's the wrong decision Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I've reread the article and it looks good. I have a few more very minor points:

  • Foundation to 1547: "The parish is in the deanery of North West Leicestershire, the Diocese of Leicester and the Province of Canterbury." I suspect this is the current organization and thus doesn't really belong in this section.
Moved to end of next section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "and enlarged in by William Hastings in 1474" extra "in" - or move year.
Left over when I moved date, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Julia Starkey -> Julie Starkey according to the leaflet on the church website (possibly the Administrator of Griffydam Primary School)
Fixed. I think whoever she is, she is actually pretty reliable where I have been able to cross check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I like the Robert Mundi/Mundy slab with the two Elizabeths - a photo would be nice.
I'll go and take a picture later today and upload it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • External links: Images. Some more info on the link would be nice.
Yes, expanded Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all. Aa77zz (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Support - Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio's comments[edit]

  • See the churches website. It looks like it is officially called "St Helen's Church" or the "Parish Church of St. Helens". I think that "St Helen's Church, AdlZ" should be the name of the page. A number of churches have this name (not abbreviated), see St. Helen's Church. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that you are right, Snow. The offical name is presumably that on the C of E website, and I used the same style for the St Nicholas, Blakeney FA without comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Surely, the church's own website would normally be considered to be correct, I would have thought. If the church's own website repeatedly calls the church "St Helen's Church" then that is the name of the church, for me. Snowman (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
See St. Helen's Church, where it is apparent that the usual format for Wiki articles appears to be "St. Helen's Church". I have invited participants of WP Anglicism to advance the discussion about the name of the church with an invitation on the Wiki Project's talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, we will see what arises, it's of no great consequence since it's easy to move the page if required Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There is one reply already on the WP talk page. User:Mangoe says this page should be moved (see his edit). Snowman (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, his statement plainly isn't correct, since the FA St Nicholas, Blakeney exists, but if you want to move it, go ahead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have moved it. I have also asked about the name of "St Nicholas, Blakeney" article on the WP talk page. Snowman (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Does this FAC talk page need moving as well? Snowman (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see much point in that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, yeah, we do need the FAC page and the article name to be in sync when it comes to bot time but I'll take care of it -- hey, that's why they pay me the big bucks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • See File:St Helens (8062003931).jpg. It has got an aerial or flagpole on the top. This would look like a prominent feature that should be included. Also, I am interested in physics, so I usually look for lightning conductors on tall buildings and this image shows one. Should the lightning conductor be part of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
It's normal for churches and other tall buildings to have lightning conductors, but they are not of historical or architectural interest, so the one at St Helen's isn't actually mentioned in any of the texts. I think it is probably something that would be assumed to be present, like gutters to carry away rain water Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"The lightning rod was invented by Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania in 1749,[2]" according the the Wiki page on lightning conductors, so a lightning conductor would not have been normal for buildings before that era. What about the flagpole? Is the flagpole also a lightning rod? Snowman (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the lightning rod dates from the 15th century. It's likely that it is a nineteenth century addition, but I don't think that it will be possible to verify that. I doubt that the flagpole is part of the conductor, and I'm not sure if it's a permanent feature, but I'll have a look later today. Again, there is unlikely to be any documentation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, the flagpole does appear to be permanent. The lightning conductor ends at the top of one of the stone pinnacles on the tower. Although the flagpole is slightly higher, its flammability and relative flimsiness presumably make it unsuitable as a terminal for the conductor. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
So why not include the flagpole and/or the lighting conductor in the article? Snowman (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Because there is no RS source and they are of no architectural or historical interest Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "... and is aligned at 25° north of east.[13]". Is the tower at the west end or the east end? I am finding it difficult to workout which side of the tower is which. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
My plan shows a compass arrow, and the tower is clearly at the west end of the church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Now that you point it out, I see a small arrow in one of the images. I see that the main text has been updated to explain this. Snowman (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the reason for the strange alignment is unknown. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there an account of the notes each bell is tuned to? How much does each bell weigh? What was wrong with the bells that needed them to be recast and rehung in 2006? Snowman (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
All I could find on the bells is in the article. I have the pre-2006 weight for the tenor bell, the largest, but it's been recast since then, so no guarantee it's the same. I'll add it anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This webpage about the church has a different story about the bells than the Wiki article. This webpage may not meet the requirements for a source for the Wiki, but there may be some truth in the story there. Apparently, in 2006 two new bells were added so there are now ten. Why not phone up the church to find out about how may bells there are? Snowman (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I must have missed the new bells originally, since my most recent source says ten, fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Excuse my ignorance, but I do not know who St Helen is. What is her correction with the church or region and why was the church named after her? Snowman (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Linked already in second paragraph of "Foundation to 1547". Nobody knows why the dedication (more than 1000 years ago) was to this saint, although her article say she may have been British originally Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, that info is in the image file, but copied to caption as requested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if the Wiki article on Henry Hastings' is correct; however, it appears to say that some of the Hastings family are buried at the church. Is this relevant to the article? Snowman (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I think considering the importance of the family to the locality, it's very relevant, especially in the case of Henry, a nationally important figure. I can't quite see what your getting at here, are you suggesting that their monuments shouldn't be discussed in the article? I've tried to concentrate only on those with the most significant memorials in the Hastings Chapel. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Whoops, my comment is somewhat confusing partly because I am not sure who "Huntingdon" is as featured in the Henry Hastings Wiki article. What I am confused about is where Henry Hastings is buried. The picutre of Henry Hastings and the text that says "coffins of the Hastings family" in this church article may suggest that Henry Hastings is one of the family who is buried there. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I've confirmed that Henry is buried in St Helen's. I don't think that there is a memorial, which would fit with his hard-line protestantism, which eschewed any showiness in religion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The living at St Helen's Church was in the gift of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508". I do not understand this nor the Wikilink on "living" to "Benefice". Is the living in the pleural? Snowman (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a poor link, changed to advowson, which is what is meant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It is now; "The advowson of St Helen's Church was in the gift of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508, ...". I think that it would literally mean; "The advowson of St Helen's Church was a property right of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508, ..., but I might be wrong. I would think that advowson is jargon from ecclesiastical Law - it may need a foot note or short explanation in parenthesis. As I understand it from the OED, an advowson is a property right that can be used by the property owner. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I've tweaked a bit. The only practical consequence of the advowson here or elsewhere is the ability to nominate the incumbent; it's not ownership in the sense of being able to sell the church or similar Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "... and his countess, Catherine." The actual name on the toome is Katherin (see image at English churches). It looks like stonework at the area beyond the end of the word "Katherin" has been damaged, so it might say "Katherine" as in the text of this webpage. Why does the article say Catherine and not Katherin or Katherine? Snowman (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Spelling was very variable then (for example Shakespeare signed his name with several different spellings, none of which corresponds to that in current use). The text continues "countisse of Huntyngdon". I used modern spelling, and Catherine is used by all my sources as the accepted version of her name. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • In the introduction; " William Hastings at the same time he erected his neighbouring castle.". This may be an oversimplification. There is an account of Hastings involvement at Ashby de la Zouch Castle wikipage, which says that he "started major works to extend and improve the castle" after it had been owned by the crown. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's stretching it a bit to describe a fortified manor house as a castle, and neither Scott or Hillier describe the previous building as such. That looks like [[[WP:OR]] in the Wikipedia article to me, since their was no previous licence to crenellate. However, I've expanded the text a little to clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments[edit]

  • I am sorely hoping that, upon reading the article, I find out that the church is home to a brood of rare Pyroclastic Pigeons or something like that. A Jimfbleak nomination without birds? *gasp* (yes, this is humor) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
well, I do have [[St Nicholas, Blakeney|previous form (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Any bats? Snowman (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Image comment: If WMUK is willing to fund it, I think Diliff would be willing to work his magic here as well (I mean, check out his work).
They look great, he's obviously got all the right gear Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Standardize: St Helens or St Helen's
fixed two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Link Victorian?
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead feels long, as this article is only 14k characters total
trimmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • deanery of North West Leicestershire, the Diocese of Leicester - link on first mention?
Not sure what you are after, all are linked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It has an entry in the Domesday Book, which suggests that it then had about 100 inhabitants, - year/century?
1086 added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • La Zouch - is there an article on the family?
No, there are a couple on individual members outside the period relevant to this article, and there is little I can find directly relevant to the church Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Parts of the nave and chancel date from the fourteenth century, - perhaps make it clear that this is parts of the current nave
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The tower, Hastings Chapel, and some buttresses and windows still remain from the fifteenth century works. - Is "works" adding anything? I think losing it would make the sentence clearer
removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Royalist stronghold - anything to link Royalist to?
linked cavalier Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Royal coat of arms - correct caps?
I think so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The increasing congregation - would including an adjective (large, for instance) work better?
added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • added during this period, along with the removal of the galleries, conversion of a chapel to a vestry and improvements to the Hastings Chapel. - to keep this parallel, I think "added during this period" needs to be changed to something with a noun
rejigged Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • to combat deathwatch beetle found during rewiring, - beetles? (not beatles, though it's the right period)
It's often used as singular when referring to an infestation, but pluralised anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • for weekly lectures in the church. - on what sorts of topics?
added "godly, orthodox and ordained minister", which I think gives the idea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • to a John G. Shields and his descendants.- What does "a" add?
removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • 25 spent preaching and pamphleteering. - missing a word, I dare say
oops! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Mark James Monk, organist from 1880–1883, fulfilled the same role from 1890 at Truro Cathedral. - is this really worth its own paragraph? Anything more on other organists?
removed, although I have a long list of organists, none are notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • both Elizabeths - both named Elizabeth?
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The chancel east window - the eastern chancel window, the east chancel window? I think chancel goes after east
I'm not sure about that. the chancel has two windows to the east and south, changed to "chancel's east window" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • including a fine "The last Supper". - whose opinion?
removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Link Font?
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The nave is significantly wider than it is long, - any hard numbers?
Not really, although I could do an approxinmate measure from the plans if that's not too OR
  • Link Dorset?
done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Duplicate link: Francis Hastings, 2nd Earl of Huntingdon — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Fixed, many thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good work, I'm pleased to see the branching out. Wouldn't want any editors to feel like they need to roost in a certain place Face-smile.svg — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for support. I'd do a greater variety, but access to sources is a problem, so mainly birds and nature reserves with a few old buildings Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – A nice little article Jim, I enjoyed reading this. A lovely contrast to what we're used to from you. One thing caught my eye:
  • The church reportedly had much stained glass in 1622, but that disappeared during the Reformation." — Two things: Firstly, we have already spoke of this above and I feel it's a little repetitive; Secondly, and should you choose to retain the sentence, I think it needs a slight copy edit so we loose the "reportedly" and the "but that" insertions. Cassiantotalk 11:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thanks for support and kind words. The first mention was the general point about the national legislation. I think we need to say that we know that St Helen's actually had stained glass originally (not necessarily the case) and it seems odd then to go straight on to the present windows without saying what happened to the old glass, even if it can be inferred from what's come before. I've tidied the sentence as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment I looked just at the lead section with the idea of copyediting it, but found nothing to do. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

(Dank thanks for looking. Two other careful editors have been through the text, so I'm happy with how things stand at present, but thanks for the offer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Looks to me that Snowman's review is still in progress but, in the meantime, was there a source review above that I missed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian, I guess that like the rest of us Snowman is pretty busy at this time of year. User:Aa77zz usually has a look at my sources, see above, but I don't know if that counts as a formal review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

William F. Raynolds[edit]

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

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

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

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


  • In the expedition section, discussion of the Wind River and Bighorn River needs a bit of clairification so that the reader knows they are not different rivers, just different parts of the same river. (I know it still confuses me at times).--Mike Cline (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    I think I wordsmithed something that works...feel free to check MONGO 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Heading east, the reunited expedition recrossed the Rocky Mountains and traveled via steamboat downstream to Omaha, Nebraska where the expedition members were disbanded in October 1860. Not accurate as once at Three Forks, the expedition was already on the Missouri river and East of the Rockies. Did they travel via the Yellowstone or Missouri east?? Where did they catch the boat--Fort Benton, Bighorn, Fort Union?? --Mike Cline (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
    Adjusted and added a source, albeit an ancient one from 1906 but likely accurate--MONGO 01:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Procedural note @Mike Cline:; there has always been a technical issue at FAC where templates slow down the page load time and cause issues once the FAC is archived. Mike, if intead of the tq template, you could use the manual font color method that Casliber uses, for example at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Telescopium/archive1, it would help the transclusion problem that sometimes occurs in FAC archives. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

  • are there any details that can be provided to flesh out the Early life section a little more? For instance, who were his parents? Do we know where he went to school, etc?
    Found further details on his ancestry but I confess it might be hard to adequately reference even though the details are neither surprising nor sensational enough to warrant much indignation due to mediocre referencing. In other words no claim to being descended from royalty or other famous persons is made. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • a widow is mentioned, are there any details about her? When did they marry? What was her name? Did they have any children?
    As above, same detail enhancement but mediocre referencing and I won't dare use findagrave as a reference. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    What you've added looks great and satisfies my request for more information, but now it appears unreferenced. For instance there are two unreferenced senteces in the Early life section: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died. William and Mary had no offspring." And another later, "William and his wife Mary, who died in 1898, were interred together in West Lawn Cemetery in Canton, Ohio." If you can't find a reliable source for these details, I think it would be best not to include it. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    I have removed his wife's name since it cannot be referenced. The information I have read states he was married "early in life" which I altered to "at a young age", that his wife outlived him and that they had no children. I've adjusted the various passages in the article to reflect this information and added a citation to reflect his place of burial which that source says is "Westlawn Cemetery", but the modern spelling is "West Lawn Cemetery" which is wikilinked.--MONGO 06:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "File:William F. Raynolds.jpg": this might look more visually appealing if it were rotated to face into the article. Is this possible, at all? (note, this is not required by policy, just a suggestion)
    I have seen that as a MOS suggestion before and its a good one...maybe I can download then reupload a reversed image and see what it looks like. MONGO 14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • watch capitalisation "Brevet Second Lieutenant" probably should be "brevet second lieutenant" (same for "Brevet Brigadier General") per MOS:MILTERMS;
  • year range format, constructions such as "1859–1860" should be "1859–60" per WP:DATERANGE (except birth-death parentheticals);
  • not sure about the comma here: "named Raynolds Pass, (44°42′40″N 111°28′11″W)"...I don't think commas are necessary before brackets;
  • not sure about the comma here: "Raynolds stated that the Crow were a, "small band...";
  • this seems a bit repetitious: "Raynold's immediate participation in the American Civil War..." followed closely by "With the outbreak of the American Civil War almost immediately after the conclusion of the expedition..."
    Wordsmithed this so the redundancy is eliminated I hope! Good point. MONGO 17:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "May, 1848" --> "May 1848" per WP:DATESNO;
  • same as above for "July, 1861". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you and I will attend to your wise points in the next few days. MONGO 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • not sure about these parameters in the cite book template: "author1=Raynolds|authorlink1=William" in Reference 20. Currently the link points to a dab page for "William", which doesn't seem right. Perhaps "authorlink" isn't the correct paramater to use?
    I simply removed the authorlink issue...its an edited version and condensed portion from Raynolds's diaries and trip report, so I just mentioned the editors.--MONGO 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest a slight tweak to this sentence: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died." There is probably no need to use the subject's full name again, particularly given that most sentences in the paragraph already begin with his name. Secondly, I'd tweak the punctuation. For instance, I suggest something like this: "Raynolds married Mary Hanchett (January 24, 1822 – January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Will do. Your suggestion looks better anyway.--MONGO 05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added my support as all of my concerns have been dealt with. Good luck with the rest of the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Truly appreciate you taking time out of your day, reviewing the article and offering wise suggestions. Much appreciated!--MONGO 04:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

Support --Mike Cline (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your review and suggestions.--MONGO 04:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments -- recusing myself from FAC coord duties on this occasion:

  • Completed my habitual copyedit, pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or you disagree with the new wording.
  • I think most of the queries I had on points of detail have been raised and resolved above. In light of that, I think structure and level of detail are fine.
  • I haven't done a source review but always happy to go with Nikki's image checks.
  • One thing, is the estimate of his estate in today's money?

Other than that I think we're looking pretty good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Ian....thank you. The printed source for the 50-100k amount is dated at 1895, so I assume that was the worth then. Would it be better to clarify that and let the reader compute the difference or do as I have done and made the calculations? Depending on the source that's 1.3-2.7 million which I rounded out some. Do we have a desired format for these sorts of things and or sources that do a reliable conversion?--MONGO 16:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Hi MONGO, sorry for not returning sooner... Looks like there is Template:Inflation for this sort of calculation, maybe best to use that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think I got it but the template, no matter how I messed with it would not seem to permit a to or and parameter so I added two templates. Hope that looks better.--MONGO 01:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    Looks fine to me. I expect I'll be ready to support this following a clean source review. BTW, saw your edit summary when adding the template -- I'd found it by looking at the section on calculations in MOS, so I figure it's all compliant (that's why I suggested it). ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you for all the help. I just saw that boilerplate at the top of that page and the stuff about OR violation so I was like, wow. But I know you know what you are doing. I wish it had a parameter that allowed ranges such as the ones I routinely use for measurements of distance, etc. I might ask and see if a template savvy editor could implement that as I am no expert on such matters.--MONGO 01:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Anyway, I think this still needs a source review (you could ask at the top of WT:FAC) so if that comes back clean I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not in any hurry but I suppose if this is still needing a ref check after the first of the year I will post a request.--MONGO 14:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sega Saturn[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from hahnchen[edit]

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

Comment (citations)[edit]

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

  • Simple statements of fact should only have 1 source. If multiple sources exist, the most reliable one covering the whole statement should be used.
  • Several review or critic summaries include up to 7 citations, but actually lack factua