Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut:

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  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.

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Telescopium[edit]

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)

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.
  • Sexual dimorphism is mentioned in the lead, but I don't see it in the body
  • Sieur Dubois '​: that final "s" is most likely silent, so this should almost certianly be "Dubois's"
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • to the starling family (Sturnidae),: I'm not confident I understand where to italicize and where not to---should "Sturnidae" be italicized?
  • I see the serial comma in some places and not in others.
  • The male was generally thought: or "is thought to have been", or has thought changed?
  • weighed 4 oz (113 g): I assume "4 oz" is a rounded figure; perhaps "113 g" should be rounded, too?
  • during [1]: I might shorten this to [2] to the avoid repetition
  • after the arrival of man: not a very 21st-century wording
  • other recently-extinct birds: recent at the time, or recent today?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:08, 28 November 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. 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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).

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)
  • Cliff Bennett and the Rebel Rousers should be linked as such.
  • Johnny Kidd & the Pirates should be linked as such.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • A brief description of what the "A Quick One" concept was about would help.
  • 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".
  • 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.
  • Robert Hilburn should be linked.
  • The Quadrophenia description should briefly mention that the album and its musical scheme reflects each of the four personalities of the group.
  • 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.
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Daltrey punched out Townshend a different time, in a studio session, didn't he?
  • 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.
  • You could say that the songwriting on Who By Numbers" presaged Townshend's solo career approach.
  • You could add to Moon being absent from "Music Must Change" is because he couldn't handle the 6/8 time signature.
  • 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.
  • The fact that the Shepperton performance was Moon's last is in the article twice.
  • The Join Together album should be linked.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Where it says "at the MGM Grand Garden Arena." the period should be a comma.
  • "The Beatles were fans of the Who and appreciated their live sound when on tour." - unclear whose tour you are talking about.
  • 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)?
  • 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.
  • 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.

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

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

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

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the last review in September, the article underwent a copyediting treatment (I'm not a native English speaker) and I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you, Earthh (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Image check - mostly OK, but 2 1 remaining issue:

  • Fixed.
  • File:City_of_Angels_music_video.jpg - fair-use for such a collage doesn't work. Most persons in this collage have their own article and simply showing their portrait photos doesn't significantly increase a reader's understanding. A crucial scene screenshot, widely discussed in reviews, could be shown as "fair-use", or a collage of free images (if available).
  • A collage of free images is not available and the music video basically shows people telling to the camera what LA means to them (it is not a narrative piece). What should I do?
  • You'll have to remove the collage image, sorry - it doesn't meet our fair-use policy. Maybe another reviewer has a better idea for a suitable replacement. GermanJoe (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's more like a mini gallery, and would be OK license-wise (assuming only free images were used). GermanJoe (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've created a collage with free-use images of some celebrities who appear in the video.--Earthh (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • All other images are CC or valid fair-use, with sufficient source and author information.
  • (Not relevant for this FA) As side note, the song sample is OK here, but has a rather weak FUR in its second article usage. Showing "variety and experimentation" is no valid fair-use reason in an article, which doesn't even mention the song and includes 3 other samples. GermanJoe (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Science Stories[edit]

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

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

Image check - all OK

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]

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

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

Image check[edit]

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

Drive-by comment

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Freedom Planet[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image check[edit]

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

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

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

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

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

Snowmanradio's comments[edit]

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

Crisco comments[edit]

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

I Never Liked You[edit]

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

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

Image review

William F. Raynolds[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

Sega Saturn[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from hahnchen[edit]

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

Comment (citations)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Caldas da Rainha[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

Battle of Schliengen[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image check[edit]

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Source review[edit]

  • (Just checking formatting)
  • Can we get accessdates for some of these web sources, such as Ref#123, #129?
  • Should that be "Teachers College Press" rahter than "Teacher's College Press"?
  • I wonder why the issue about her maiden name is shunted to a footnote
  • In the "Notes" section there's a lot of external linking without explaining what the sources are (and which is also susceptible to link rot)
  • What is the logic behind putting some things in "Notes" and others in "Footnotes". I'mn thinking of statements such as ref#6: "Her father was an outspoken Republican, while her mother kept quiet but was "basically a Democrat". and #16: " The teacher, Paul Carlson, and the minister, Donald Jones, came into conflict in Park Ridge; Clinton would later see that "as an early indication of the cultural, political and religious fault lines that developed across America in the [next] forty years""
  • Ref#52: "This Google Scholar search result produces nearly one hundred hits showing citations of her paper in academic literature.": This likely constitutes WP:OR
  • Ref#s 74 & 75: ditto
  • Ref#211: this is a primary source---is there not another that can be used to cite this statement?
  • Ref#383: see for example Franklin, op. cit.: I think we're supposed to avoid things like op. cit.
  • Can we get pages for:
    • Ref#31 "The Class of '69"
    • Ref#54 "Adults Urge Children's Rights"
    • Ref#122 "First Lady President?"
    • Ref#128 "St. Hillary"
  • otherwise sources appear correctly formatted. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Good Girl Gone Bad[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

  • I believe worked with various producers on the album sounds more natural.
  • It should be mentioned that 7 million copies were sold worldwide.
  • Technically speaking, an album can not produce singles, it can generate them.
  • I agree produced is not the best word, however, what about spawned?
  • Why don't you write the producers with their stage names: Tricky Stewart instead of Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, L.A. Reid instead of Antonio "L.A." Reid, and so.
  • When I click on "tour", I expect the link to lead to concert tour. Why don't you write the full name of Timberlake's tour or maybe delink the word?
  • I think you've misinterpreted the ref describing "Umbrella". The Guardian called it an "improbable R&B summer smash" (not rock)! It further said it reminded the author of a "rock power ballad", but that's not the same as being a rock power ballad.
  • Regarding the live performances, isn't there some choreography when the songs are played onstage? I haven't watched Rihanna's concerts, but there certainly are dancers, screens, or specific outfit when she performs.
  • Since it was a 2007 tour, there are not much sources describing it the tour. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The commercial performance, as well as the charts and tables are professionally done, perhaps the strongest side of the article, so I have no complaints on that.
  • Here are a few spotchecks on the references:
    • ref 2—Vibe saying A Girl Like Me is a pop album→verified
    • ref 3—dancehall and R&B influences on the sophomore album according to Rolling Stone→verified
    • ref 8—Rihanna received singing lessons from Ne Yo→verified
    • ref 15—"Umbrella" previously offered to Mary J. Blige→verified
    • ref 22—no Caribbean influences on this record per Allmusic→verified
    • ref 30—Metro Weekly compared "Rehab" to "Cry Me a River"→verified
    • ref 44—highlights are the three Timbaland tracks according to The Village Voice journalist→verified
    • ref 87—canceled concert in Malaysia because of costumes→verified
    • refs 91–100—these are critics quotations, so I assume they are correct.
    • ref 105—2.8 million copies sold in the US→not verified; the link is good, but the first part of the article is missing
    • ref 110—1.85 million copies sold in Britain→verified
    • ref 117—7 million copies sold globally→verified
    • ref 121—Rolling Stone ranks "Umbrella" at 412→verified
    • ref 125—not verified→link leads to unspecified entry; if you're using Chart Watch, you can credit the author, Paul Grein.
    • ref 130—not verified→best selling dance/electronic album, per the article's title
    • ref 131—the remix album 49,000 copies sold→verified, but you may add by July 2010, to be more specific
  • You may want to check the external links in the toolbox, it appears that several are dead
  • @Retrohead: I fixed/removed/added all the dead links :). I believe everything is good now. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support since all my comments were addressed, and I have no further objections.--Retrohead (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Retrohead. — Tomíca(T2ME) 14:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • Done, repaired them. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I would title the picture set "Major writers and producers on Good Girl Gone Bad", since Tricky Stewart worked on two tracks, Ne-Yo worked on three, and Justin Timberlake worked on only one. I feel that the individual captions alone suffice because they give more specific details about their respective collaborations. The sentences for Tricky Stewart and Ne-Yo also need periods at the end of them because they are complete sentences.
  • In regards to the Justin Timberlake caption, I feel like "and learned much from the sessions" is too open-ended and unclear. I would recommend just dropping this part of the sentence and leaving it at how much Rihanna enjoyed working with him.
  • In "Composition", you could move the first sentence into the first full paragraph, so we don't have a little stub of a paragraph hanging out on its own in the beginning.
  • How about you chunk the two audio samples into a single box so it looks a little bit less cluttered?
  • In the "Singles" section, it would be helpful to either a) find a better picture of Bey and Jay where both of their faces are more clearly visible, or if that's not possible, b) make the existing image a bit larger.
  • Since I couldn't find a better pic of them too, I decided that the Jay Z part was more notable regarding "Umbrella" ofc, and added just a picture of him. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Since it is a little short on its own, I feel like "Accolades and legacy" could be merged into a couple of other sections. The first paragraph would fit well in "Critical response", and the second paragraph would flow nicely in the "Commercial performance" section.
  • "Re-issue and remix album" would fit well as the third subheading beneath "Marketing and release", since both discs are undoubtedly promotional efforts to boost the performance of the original record.
  • Any particular reason why "Deluxe Edition Featuring Dance Remixes" is in capitalized in the track listing?
  • The release history table has a chunk of missing record labels for some countries.
  • Not anymore ;). — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful to link music/digital download because you link CD and LP in the table.
  • What is the difference between the deluxe and limited editions? There are a variety of deluxe editions mentioned in the track listing so that for me isn't an issue, but I don't see anything about a specific limited edition.
  • That's just going according to what the source says the CD is. — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You might be interested in moving references into a separate column at the end of the table, although this is purely a matter of personal preference.
  • With all due respect, I prefer them like this :). — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Umeed, Wagle Ki Duniya, and that English TV film needs years of release.

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

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

  • "..told the story of two unhappily married couples in New York who have an extramarital affair. " Shouldn't it be "have extramarital affairs"?
  • "whose love for his accidental wife Sharma" Accidental wife? This needs to be re-phrased.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Older nominations[edit]

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the second nomination; the first one was closed due to a lack of responses/feedback. The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from TheQ Editor[edit]

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

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

FIFA Club World Cup[edit]

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

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

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

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

Sinclair C5[edit]

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

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

Comments from Ritchie333[edit]

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

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

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

Eurovision Song Contest 2012[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taiko[edit]

Nominator(s): I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Comment

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

Image review

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

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

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

Two quick non-lead points:

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

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

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

Comments (part 2, up to categorization)

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

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

Antananarivo[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Hi, I'll try to review this section by section over the next day or week.

  • Economy:
    • The entire first paragraph is fed off one reference, that is currently a deadlink. I have found an archive version of this at https://web.archive.org/web/20130615000000*/http://unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.aspx?nr=3371&alt=1 but this is a very long document, in French, and I don't know how to link specific facts in the paragraph back to this.
    • "Business owners are drivers of growth for the city" - no reference provided for this.
    • "in 2010, 60 percent of all new buildings in the country were located in Antananarivo, most of which were built for commercial purposes" - again, no reference. Also it might benefit from a rewording, the sentence as given doesn't directly imply that there is a lot of business growth, because perhaps there are almost no buildings built in the country anyway, for all we know.
    • "Under Ravalomanana, construction in the capital increased sharply; twelve new supermarkets were constructed in two years" - this sentence seems a bit out of place. Presumably it refers to a period before 2009 - it is worth clarifying which two year period is referred to - and seems odd, following on from commentary on post 2009 developments.
    • Some other questions:
      • Are the manufactured products exported nationally only, or internationally as well?
      • Do we have any idea of the city's gross product, or GDP growth rate? And also what percentage that is of the national GDP?
      • Who are the city's biggest companies and employers?
      • Is there a stock exchange, or other financial companies, banks etc?

Thanks. More later!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

History of KFC[edit]

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

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

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

The Boat Race 2003[edit]

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

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

Support from SchroCat[edit]

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

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

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

Support from Tim riley[edit]

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

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

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

  • In the lead, "along the River Thames" is a bit vague. I would say "along the tidal stretch of the River Thames in south-west London", and I'd include the length of the race here, to give full force to the one-foot winning margin.
    Okay, have expanded a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the list of words used to describe the race, "incredible" appears in the lead, but is not in any of the quotations cited in the main text
    Have found the quote and added to reaction section. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "In the reserve race Goldie beat Isis and Oxford won the Women's race." I don't think that this is leadworthy information, since neither of these facts is relevant to the race itself.
    But the reseve and women's race are expanded upon, albeit mildly, in the main article and I believe the lead should summarise the whole thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the main text, Background section, rather than just saying "south-west London" you should give the starting and finishing points (Putney to Mortlake), and perhaps emphasise that the race is rowed upstream. (note "south-west" should be hyphenated)
    Added P&M, but the race hasn't alway been rowed upstream so I'm reluctant to add yet another "usually"... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the term "bow-man". I may be wrong, but certainly at my (keen rowing) school we called him the "bow", and that's the term I remember from commentaries, press reports, etc. There is a linked article which seems to verify my feeling about this.
    Ok, replaced with a wikilinked bow. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "line-up" is another word that in BritEng requires a hyphen (per Shorter OED and OD of E)
    Hyphenated. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Cambridge crew had a 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member advantage" would be a little more elegant as "The Cambridge crew had an advantage of 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member."
    Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "underdogs" – link to WP article
    really? I thought that was a common enough term. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    You are probably right. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Link stroke
    Linked to Stroke (rowing)#Stroke seat. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the main race description I can only discern two changes in the race's lead: at Hammersmith Bridge when Oxford overtook Cambridge, and on the approach to Barnes Bridge when Oxford regained the advantage. The article lead says "The lead changed three times during the course of the race" – when did the third occur?
    Yes, this is leaning on the BBC description of the race. Both their and other wordy descriptions would imply that Oxford taking the lead from the start is included as one of the "changes", hence Oxford took the lead to start, then Cambridge overtook, then Oxford regained the lead, three lead changes... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced by this. Someone has to be the first to get their noses in front – this cannot be considered as a "change" in the lead. If Cambridge briefly took an initial lead and were then quickly passed by Oxford, OK, but did this happen? If so, it should be explicit in the race description. However, up to the Mile Post the Middlesex side has a slight advantage, before the big loop in the river starts to favour the Surrey side, so Oxford being initially in the lead is rather more likely. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Okay, as I said, the BBC explicitly used the phrase "three times", but as you're not convinced, I've changed it to twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The actual race description, a mere 277 words, does appear rather brief, given the crescendo of superlatives in the lead which introduces this account. Such an exciting race should surely be more fully described, and I am sure that a little more detail could be added. For example, you could point out the significance of the toss, and of Cambridge's choice of the Surrey side. Also, you mention Oxford's slightly higher stroke rate at the beginning of the race, but there is no further mention of stroke rate at other points in the rate. I would really like to know what the respective stroke rates were in the final minute or so of the race, when Cambridge closed in on Oxford's lead. There is a whole book about the race (Blood Over the Water); shouldn't this be a source?
    I will see if I can expand the race section a little without going into complete jargon meltdown (ratings etc I think are a little too dull for 99.9% of our readership, and often give a false impression in any case, a higher rating doesn't mean a faster boat as you know...) or synthesis (the heavier crews, selection of station etc are all steeped in statistics, which I can cover here, but I'm not sure how relevant any of it is to this specific race...) I can look into the book, but I guess it'll kibosh this nomination should you insist I need to get that source. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    I am sure you can achieve some expansion without going into "jargon meltdown"; I've read numerous sporting articles where this has been achieved (as well as others where it hasn't). My comment concerning relevant stroke rates was merely a suggestion, but it might enable you to mention what the relative rowing tactics of the two crews were – at present this is not touched on. And I do feel you need to explain the significance of the toss, which is of some importance, otherwise why mention it? Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Well, regarding the toss, I mention it because it forms part of the overall description of the day. I could describe the significance of the choice of station in each of the 160 boat race articles, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave that kind of generic detail to The Boat Race article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    Obviously I am not asking you to explain how the toss had impacted on all the previous 160 races. What I had in mind was something like this: "Cambridge won the coin toss and elected to start from the southern bank (the "Surrey side") of the Thames. In doing so, they yielded a slight initial advantage to Oxford, which they could hope to reverse after the first mile, when a major loop in the river's course favours the Surrey station". Personally I would find such an additional sentence helpful. I'm not insisting that you consult the Blood Over the Water source, although I think it would be interesting to do so, as it provides a perspective from the race's participants. I will not, however, oppose on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Not really, it depends on the way the wind blows as well. There's no clear cut advantage, as the stats show. To claim such would be synthesis, and I'll leave it to the main article for a more comprehensive analysis of the 160 races to determine whether or not it makes a significant difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    Well I'm obviously hitting a brick wall here so I'll refrain from further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we need the (albeit brief) descriptions of the reserve and women's races? The article is about the "Boat Race", not races, and we already have the results of these supporting events.
    It is, but the tradition around the event means that the reserve race and the women's blue race are considered relevant, hence the brief coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Citations to newspapers that don't have online links should have page numbers. See 14, 16, 18, 23, 29, 33, 39
    Yeah, my oversight. I'll need to talk to my source source about this. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
    All addressed now using URLs and the {{Subscription required}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Typhoon Chanchu[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

I'm not an expert, so feel free to laugh at any silly thing I may have to say.

  • You might consider alt text for images
  • in the month of May according to the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO):
    • I'm surprised the year of the storm isn't mentioned in the opening line.
    • "the month of May" 2006, or for Mays in general?
    • For us non-experts, why is the Hong Kong Observatory singled out, and is it necessary to do so in the opening sentence?
  • , according to the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA): again, why is the JMA being singled out, and is it necessary to state this in the lead? This just comes across as noise to me at this stage of the article.
  • any reason "of 175 km/h (110 mph)" is plain text but {{convert|190000|ha|acre|abbr=on}} uses a template? I see a mix of both styles throughout.
  • "near Shantou, Guangdong on May 17 as a severe tropical storm" are you committed to the no-comma-after-the-state style? I know there are those who prefer this style, but it's the kind of thing that others like to come along and "fix". This is especially so because it is superficially inconsistent with "In Legazpi, Albay, strong waves" later.
    • Just a few comments in response, Curly, if that's okay. This is a tough problem for copyeditors ... every style guide says to put the trailing commas in, but few writers do that on their own these days, and few writers are consistent. I've surrendered on this point. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Well, I ask, because I can't always be sure it's intentional. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • dissipating west of Kyushu.: many will assume Kyushu is another part of China
  • ₱117.57 million (PHP: are ₱ and PHP not redundant? You use this pattern throughout the paragraph—is it common? I don't recall seeing this style before.
    • I believe WP:$ requires identifying most currencies at first occurrence. I don't have any preference how people do that. - Dank (push to talk)
  • An area of convection, or thunderstorms: is this saying that "convection" means "thunderstorms"?
    • This is a common convention, but you make a good point about possible ambiguity. Would you prefer parens? - Dank (push to talk)
      • I asked because, clicking through, the article seems to say that convection can lead to thinderstorms, but doesn't seem to equate convection with thunderstorms, which this phrasing does seem to do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM): "FSM" doesn't appear in the rest of the article---I'd drop it
  • although a circulation: in most people's vocab "circulation" is a non-count noun. If that's not the case here, is there a synonym that could be used?
    • It's going to be pretty hard to get weather people to give up this usage, and it doesn't sound that odd to me, but YMMV. Linguists would say it "needs testing", and I think they're right. - Dank (push to talk)
  • moved to the west-southwest: would this have an inappropriate meaning if cut to "moved west-southwest"?
    • No opinion. - Dank (push to talk)
      • It seems ambiguous to me as "to the" can imply either a direction or a destination. I assume a direction was intended, in which case doing the "to the" is both unambiguous and more concise. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Its tracked shifted more: should this be "track"?
  • 1 minute winds of: normally "1 minute" would be hyphenated if functioning as an adjective (noun adjunct); is this a special case?
    • I curse the person who first thought of this diacritical mark, they cause more headaches ... - Dank (push to talk)
      • It amazes me that people have such trouble with this---people wouldn't dream of stressing "one year old" and "one-year-old" the same way in conversation. Normally I'd just fix it, but I'm not confident I should with specialized terminology. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In the former province: this leaves me scratching my head
  • flights to offshore islands: are there islands that aren't offshore?
    • What do you prefer, Curly? - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Later, airlines canceled 12 flights in Japan due to the storm.: meaning Taiwanese airlines canceled flights in Japan?
  • largest oceanic rescue at the time: meaning up until that time?
  • remained missing as of May 23: is that when they gave up looking?
  • after dispersing a Ceratium bloom: clicking through to Ceratium isn't enlightening me here---what happened?
  • Vietnam Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environment: worth a redlink?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Jack Parsons (rocket engineer)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Not a big MILHIST guy, so I reckon I'd be of some help here. A few initial comments:

  • Is "NDH" a commonly known term? In English, moreover? I'd prefer simply seeing it referred to as "Croatia" if this isn't contextually ambiguous for another reason.
    • G'day, thanks for your comments. The use of plain "Croatia" to refer to the NDH, a fascist puppet state that pursued genocidal policies towards the Serbs, Roma and Jews living on its territory, is considered POV, as it equates the modern state with the fascist one.
      • Fair enough. I'm well aware that the former Yugoslav, Serbo-Croatian-speaking (well, in the eyes of most linguists) countries have rivalries that would make the rap world jealous, and I'm not trying to support one side or the other... or the other other, so please point out if anything I suggest leans that way. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the Ustaše?
    • the fascist and extreme nationalist organisation that ruled the NDH. It is linked, do you see a need to explain it further in the lead?
      • That'd be helpful, yes. Tezero (talk) 08:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What's a gendarmerie?
    • a paramilitary police. I've added a link to the lead.
  • The intro ought to cover the uprising's aftermath a little, especially considering its decent detail of the other sections.
  • "ambushed a truckload of Italians" - I'm not sure I see the significance. Were they Italian soldiers? Diplomats? Reporters? Accordionists? Pizza chefs?
    • soldiers, fixed.
  • And by "the Italians", do you mean Italy as a nation, the group this small band was a part of, or just the small band itself?
    • The Italian quasi-occupation forces, I've tweaked it.
  • The intro also doesn't give a single mention of what kinds of weapons were used. I'm an American; I need guns and blood with everything - and with the gory details, if ya don't mind! It is rather odd, though, to explain this much about the logistics of the skirmish and nothing about what it was actually like down there.

Tezero (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand the motivation, but I'm not sure that specifying the actual weapons used is necessary or even desirable in this case. The frontline WWII Yugoslav rifle was the 7.92mm Mauser bolt-action M24 series made under licence in Yugoslavia, and the reservists were issued a locally-converted Austrian 7.92mm Mannlicher M95 series rifle of WWI vintage. Nearly all the troops that just went home after the April war would have been equipped with one of those rifles. Also, Yugoslav society was pretty weaponised at this stage, and there would have been a lot of civilian weapon types used by the rebels, from shotguns to single-shot rifles. So far as machine guns were concerned, the Yugoslavs had a huge range of automatic weapons they had acquired from available sources between the wars. I have never seen a source that specified the weapons that were used in the June revolt. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least you can specify that they were using rifles, as opposed to, I don't know, machine guns or tanks. I'm sure some source specifies that much. Tezero (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, moving on:

  • Does battalion need to be linked?
    • I think so, not everyone knows what one is.
  • I'd prefer if Background and Prelude were split up into at least a couple of subsections each, especially as Background contains a few gargantuan paragraphs.
    • Done.
  • "threw their bodies into a nearby pit" - either simply state "sinkhole" or delink
    • Done.
  • Please link "Muslims" somewhere, perhaps to an article like "Islam in Bosnia" (haven't checked to see if that exists).
    • Bosniaks, done.
  • The section 27-28 June doesn't have the best flow imaginable; the first paragraph is hugely larger than the second, and every one of them except the last starts with "On such and such a day/time, such and such happened."
    • Para split.
  • Also split the paragraph beginning with "After the relief of Nevesinje".
    • Done.
  • Same with the single paragraph in Aftermath, especially because that constitutes the entire section.
    • Done.

I'll be honest, the subject matter is very dry to me so I wasn't reading this in depth. I'll try to give a few more detailed comments later. Tezero (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Olympic marmot[edit]

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

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

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

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

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

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

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

Image check - all OK[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

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

  • The article doens't have any image that shows the entire animal. The ones that are available are not very good,but I think we should have at least one until a replacement can be found. Here are the "best" ones:[3][4][5][6][7] FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, these images are probably on par with, if not better, than what's in the article: [8][9] Here's a pretty bad one showing dark parts:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
    • OK, replaced a couple images. —innotata 07:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "treated as a distinct species, a treatment" Sounds a bit repetitive, could the last treatment become "position" or some such?
    • Changed to 'classification'. —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't hoary marmot and other species (as well as everything else linked in the lead) be linked at first mention after the lead?
    • Done —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A cladogram could perhaps be nice under taxonomy?
    • I don't think so. There's not much confidence to branching within Petramarmota, so all that can be said is that the species could be the most basal Petramarmota (ie, it is the sister taxa to all the others). —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok, if no good ones have been published. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • How do they identify predators, by smell, sight, or both?
    • Definitely mostly sight, in common with other ground-dwelling squirrels. —innotata 21:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "and interact with other marmots only in the morning and evening. In between these times, Olympic marmots can sometimes be found lying on rocks where they sun themselves for warmth, grooming each other, playing, chirping, and feeding together." Doesn't this contradict itself?
    • I removed the first part, since it seems like that's the mistake. —innotata 01:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "On some occasions, the other marmots in the colony will make a trip over to the satellite male's burrow since he cannot leave that area, often about two times an hour." For what purposes?
    • The source doesn't explicity say, so I hesitate to change this. To keep tabs on him in some way, for the respective reasons of the dominant male and the females. —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "By 2006, numbers had dropped to 1,000 individuals" From what? The earlier estimate is explained as inaccurate.
    • Some unknown number higher than 2,000; as stated in the article, conservationists knew the old counts were underestimates, but that more accurate new ones were even lower. That's how it looks, at least. —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "to overcome initial bipartisan opposition to a new state symbol" What was the former?
    • No, the opposition was to adding a state symbol, a "state endemic mammal" as well as a "state bird" and "state flower" and so on. This is a common thing here, some states have a couple dozen symbols, and mine has a state photograph and state muffin. I think this makes sense in context, but I suppose it could be changed to "another" or "an additional". —innotata 01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that addition would be nice, confusing for a non American. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done —innotata 07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Only one issue to be addressed before I support. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - everything addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Trey Burke[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

Comments

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

Typhoon Karen[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image check - all OK

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

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

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

Lafayette dollar[edit]

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

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

Image review

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

Source review Just a couple of quick thoughts/comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crisco comments

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

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

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

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Very interesting and readable, and leaning heavily to support. A couple of comments before I commit: you've probably considered them already, but no harm in looking again.

Background

  • "American envoy to France Benjamin Franklin, ...": should there be a comma pre-Ben?
  • "The marquis and his son George Washington Lafayette arrived": I'd have stuck a couple of commas round the name, but your call.

Inception

  • "A total of $45,858.30 was obtained..." I know opinion is divided in giving approximate modern equivalents, but some idea of whether this was a million, ten million or more may be useful (even in a footnote)? Your call, either way.
My position on these things is there is no adequate way to relate the value of money back to a time when even a middle-class family would have hot and cold running servants. The fact that the children were asked to bring cents is an indication that money was worth more then than today. (I expect that today the children would be expected to bring in at least a fiver.

Design

  • "The obverse of the Lafayette dollar features jugate, or conjoined, heads"… You've linked jugate in the Preparation section – would the conjoined explanation be better there?
No, the reader there can use the link to find out what it means. If the reader skips that section and comes right here, he still gets an explanation.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Design

  • "His horse has two feet up, which, by some accounts, in art means Lafayette died on the battlefield, which he did not—one hoof up would mean a battlefield wound, and all four feet on the ground means the subject died a natural death": I thought this had been debunked as an urban myth somewhere…? (Although for the life of me, I cannot remember where I read it!)
See the discussion with BB. It seems to apply broadly to ACW statues, but 1899 was about the time they were building such things, so it has some relevance.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "why [sculptor and Barber enemy[26]]": is there a reason the citation is before the punctuation?
I'm trying to make it clear that the citation is intended to go to "Barber enemy" as some question was raised concerning this by BB.

Production and aftermath

  • "Philadelphia Public Ledger reported," I know Americans seen to have a phobia of the definite article, but would you even eschew one here too? (Feel free to tell me not to interfere in colonial punctuation matters if I'm hopelessly wrong...!)

Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

2010 Sylvania 300[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

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

William Wurtenburg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

  • The word "shutout" is overused.
    • Your edits have dealt with this concern. - Dank (push to talk) 03:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

  • "His final contribution to football was publishing a book about Yale football": is the title known? If so, it should be included.
  • "Sometime around then": a little colloquial. I'd suggest "At about that time" instead.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Spokane, Washington[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Again, link on first mention

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

  • Queen Anne and early Craftsman styles - Link?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your thorough review. I will try to dedicate as much time as I can to work on the issues above over the weekend, since I might be getting more busy next week. The bulk of the POV/marketese sentences were always most likely to be in the Culture section, and Ill comb that whole section looking specifically for those POV sentences and tweaking the language so it sounds less promotional. I see most of the POV sentences that you listed are clear, but the reasons behind others not so much..Ill elaborate on the questions I have as I go through them in the coming days.
As for the Crime section, I thought that was pretty NPOV, and gave a good overview of the overall situation. I didnt know that coverage some cases of individual crimes would be necessary. I will expand the section talking about the officer involved shootings (using Otto Zehm as the talking point) and probably mention what is being done to try to prevent them in the future (body cameras, etc). I might briefly mention some of the serial killers that have garnered attention in Spokane such as the South Hill rapist and Yates. When I looked at the Youngstown, Ohio, Providence, Rhode Island and Tulsa featured articles, I saw they dont go into that kind of detail, but I do see that the San Francisco, California article does mention some notable cases and it might not be as unusual as I think. In regard to the sourcing, I need some additional information to act on and fix the problem. If you could give me examples of what you are seeing and list some of the ones you would like re-sourced to something else with a brief reason why you think the source isnt ideal, that would be great. Some of the sentences that you tagged as 'citation needed' I thought would fall into the realm of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but I think what I saw is probably only for the good article criteria:"direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". Ill grab a source and put them in there. As for the citations that were there at the start of the FAC process, I got a chance to look at many of those as I was updating the refs looking for linkrot and double checking the book pages to see if its the right one, and I havent seen many significant issues with the references so far; almost all the sources are there for all to see, so if you see one let me know. Thank you again for critiquing and helping the article!G755648 (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A good rule of thumb might be to avoid using local newspapers when RSes from outside Spokane are available, and I'd really like to see "History link" replaced with something a bit more solid. Still concerned about that fairly minor magazine award. Stuff like that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
What magazine award? The Sports event of the year?? If you are concerned with it I can take it out if you likeG755648 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That would be nice, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Historylink seems fine to me. HistoryLink.org according to the website is an "evolving online encyclopedia of Washington state and local history. It provides a free, authoritative, and easily accessible history reference for the benefit of students, teachers, journalists, scholars, researchers, and the general public." It is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation that "With a few exceptions, HistoryLink essays are fully sourced, bylined, and dated to provide authoritative references for legal, journalistic, and scholastic use...With a few noted exceptions, all essays and features on this site are original works prepared exclusively for HistoryLink.org by staff historians, contract writers, volunteers, and consulting experts. All essays and features are vetted by professional staff" The website originally only covered the Seattle area but was expanded state-wide and is one of the primary sources for the Seattle featured article. Each essay has their sources are listed at the bottom of each essay in great detail. You can see these above the essay's author [11]. All the text is licensed under the Creative Commons license. HistoryLink is one of the primary sources used in the Seattle featured article.G755648 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's nice, and you're right: the website isn't as bad as I thought it may be. However, it is still predominantly a local (and thus possibly COI) resource. For instance, the article you link to is by Laura Arksey, a member of the Spokane historical society, whom you appear to cite predominantly for general information, information which may be found in more traditionally reliable sources that are not related to the city. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As a side note: HistoryLink has been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard twice (1, 2) but the feedback is contradictory. I'd prefer stronger sourcing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree with you on the sourcing to the local history site, I always prefer solid book sources (which are available) for a lot of them. Overall now I think the coverage is getting there but as you say the tone in parts and sourcing lets it down. My gut feeling on this was to withdraw and to get a few pairs of eyes on the prose and try to overhaul the sourcing and then renominate after a peer review in which we're all fairly content with it for FA. It's achievable, but I think there is too much needing doing and overhauling to make this worth keeping open. It's definitely improved a fair bit from when it was nominated though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I see your concerns about HistoryLink since it isnt a slick website and might look amateurish compared to other sites and since it is on that noticeboard, but that first time I dont see anybody raising too much of an issue over it and the second one shows someone not opposed to using it. I would like to you to be open minded and take a further look at it though. Also, I dont think I would consider it a "local" source, although some of the authors are local historians-Jim and Laura it looks like, not all of them are (David Wilma, Kit Oldham, Cassandra Tate are historians from Seattle [12], which is where Historylink is based), and their sources come from solid sources such as books etc are cited at the bottom of the essays they write for HistoryLink, so location isnt too relevant. Arkseys Great Fire article cites 4 books and a periodical [13]. Jim Kershner (born in Denver if that matters) is an accomplished author who has written a few books and has won national awards in journalism, and Arksey is a published author as well. The reviewers of the Seattle featured article must have determined it was a reliable and reputable source even though HistoryLink is a local to Seattle. Im not sure if being from a local organization would completely discredit that organization as having a conflict of interest, these people are professionals (they arent armchair historians from Wikipedia); for instance, if it was a California encyclopedia and staff historians from UC Berkeley were writing an article for HistoryLink on San Francisco, I dont think anyone would have a problem with that. Simply being local shouldnt mean there is a conflict of interest or discredit a person or organization or book, we are dealing with professionals here. The writers of that area are almost always going to be locally or regionally based, thats natural since the topic is relevant to them. I havent seen any POV issues with HistoryLink and that makes sense because it deals only with history (Washington state history), and doesnt make comment on things such as culture, which can naturally lends itself to some POV issues if not done by a professional. Luckily, Historylink is written by qualified and professional staff authors and historians, some which hold PhDs and for their works, All essays and features are vetted by professional staff. HistoryLink has been reviewed in the past by the people who did the Seattle FAC and FAR, and they thought it acceptable, Im not sure why its receiving so much scrutiny here.

If you have any questions about them I encourage you to contact them with the information below from their site: Research Inquiries: admin@historylink.org Education Team: education@historylink.org Office: eleanor@historylink.org

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

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

As you can see, there are several books in there. If you like traditional book sources, this essay includes information from them. Some of those books are cited in the article, Stratton in particular. Now I will say that when Blofeld asked me to try to get some of those HLs to books, I did so for the ones that I had access to-some of the HistoryLink references are actually doubled up to a book source to provide the reader the ability to learn more about the topic, which I think is important for verifiability-they can actually see it themselves. But, some of those I dont have access to and almost nobody but a historian with the resources that HistoryLink has can access them. I would say those books are solid sources, even though some of them are published locally...problem? I dont think so, were dealing with professional historians here, not a tourism board.
I would like to point out, that HistoryLink not only writes online essays, they have themselves published many books as well with UW Press if you look at their website[14]...they are writing about the community that they live in, Seattle, Washington. I will just list some here:
  • Power for the People: A History of Seattle City Light David Wilma, Walt Crowley and the HistoryLink Staff (2010 History Ink with UW Press)
  • Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition: Washington’s First World’s Fair (2009, History Ink)
  • The Fairmont: The Story of a San Francisco Landmark (2006, for Fairmont Hotels & Resorts)
  • Moving Washington Timeline: The First Century of the Washington State Department of Transportation, 1905-2005 (2005, WSDOT with UW Press)
  • Bellevue Timeline, 1863-2003 (2004, City of Bellevue with UW Press)
  • The Story of Union Station in Seattle (1999, for Sound Transit) The War Years: A Chronicle of Washington State in World War II (2000 in association with the University of Washington Press)
I think HistoryLink has been utilized to that extent that it has because it seems to be deemed by many of the people in the wikipedia community as a reliable source. It is utilized even more so on the Seattle featured article which has gone through 3 FAC/FARs and not once do I see any issue of this being brought up and it seems like an injustice in terms of consistency in the wikipedia community that one article can utilize this source as reliable for almost a decade, but here in this one instance, one reviewer deems it so inadequate it cannot be used for a FA. It has been on the noticeboard twice, but neither time did anybody say it was unacceptable and not OK.. HistoryLink as an organization is independent, hires professional staff historians from a variety of fields, has access to a wealth of information, and is verifiable, vetted and fact checked by staff, transparent, and they even have given their essays a Creative Commons license. I really dont know what there is not to like about that. Its like they made it for wikipedia. I believe it is a reliable source by wikipedia standards. Now, I have not seen any issue with HistoryLink as it pertains to POV (the main issue that you have with Historylink it seems, since you believe it is "local"), but according to what ive been looking at on wikipedia it says:

Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say. and this A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. The bias in sources argument is one way to present a POV as neutral by excluding sources that dispute the POV as biased. Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the writer's point of view.[15]

I have some other questions, if a local source is not to be trusted, why dont you arent you scrutinizing the Spokesman-Review, or Strattons book (not published in Spokane-but still in the region...Meinig is from Palouse, WA-is what he writes POV and suspect too?) These are the questions that are popping up. If you cannot use anything that is local because of a potential conflict of interest, then writing a comprehensive article for something as significant as a whole city would be almost impossible unless its maybe New York City or a place that truly has global significance. This discussion has gotten way longer than I ever expected it to go, and Im sorry for writing a book in here..but I wanted to state my case for HistoryLinks inclusion. I believe it is an excellent resource.
I would like to know how you feel about the sourcing of the rest of the article. Do you like the Crime section now? I added info about Yates and Zehm. I have also been reviewing the Culture section for POV sentences and I found a couple more, but I think it rights right now. Let me know what you think. Thanks again for your input!G755648 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • A local press is a bit more trustworthy than a local website, IMHO. Either way, I'll strike my "oppose" above, but I cannot in good faith support with such an (over)reliance on the source which may or may not be reliable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Re: the noticeboard. One of the two discussions consisted of negative feedback; it's not like the source has never been questioned. Also, the Seattle article was promoted in 2005. Things have changed quite a bit since then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Although I dont understand the insecurities since it is again not a local website, I respect your view on HistoryLink and I am thankful that your are not going to kill the FAC because of a single source. I still want to address your issues to the best of my ability and work with you on this; I value your opinion. I hope the HistoryLink discussion hasnt turned you off to your participation here. I am like you, I would rather cite the book that HistoryLink uses rather than HistoryLink itself, but its hard to use 100% books. I wish I had all the books available to me so I can write this whole thing with books, but I dont have the resources, time, or money to gather all those materials...but luckily the 40 staff historians at HistoryLink do. The sections that we use it for in the history section are mainly in the sections that have an extremely narrow focus and subject matter or are in fairly recent history, so recent that I dont think many books have been published about those events. Its filling the sections that we cant find a book for basically. You said you didnt mind using it in all cases, if you tell me which ones you have the most issues with, I will do my best to source them to something else.
Also, Just as a note, it is true the Seattle article was promoted in 2005, but its last of 2 featured article reviews was in 2009 and I dont think wikipedias policy that I pointed out above on using sources with a POV has ever changed. Anyway, you said you were worried about the sentence about the recent downtown renewal in particular before, I found a book through Google called 'Urban Tourism and Urban Change: Cities in a Global Economy' By Costas Spirou to source that sentence to now. I will include it. Thanks for your insight CriscoG755648 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good start (for the other thing, though, I should note five years is still quite a while in Wiki-time). If the source reviewer approves the use of HistoryLink, I'll support, but until then I'll wait on the fence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Sure, that sounds like good idea since we talk about the Davenport in the Commercial section, it will give it some balance. I think Ill probably talk about the Campbell House, it is part of the Museum of Arts and Culture. Ill try to get working on that after I get done working on the fixes Crisco is recommending. Nice job with the edits!
Ill probably be using these sources for the section unless I find something better when I get to it. [16] and [17]

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

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

  • "known at the time as "Spokan [sic] Falls".": Drop the [sic]. Per the article, "the "e" was added in 1883". [I got that one - Dank (push to talk)]
The [sic] was put in because people reading it often see that its missing the 'e' and think that its a typo. Hopefully that doesnt keep happening..G755648 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Spokane tribe": Spokane People uses the word "tribe" exactly once in the text, preferring "the Spokanes". We don't have to walk on eggshells over the name, but if the Spokanes prefer not to be called a tribe, then they aren't a tribe. The word can be ambiguous, because many readers think of a "tribe" as a group of not more than around 150 people, but even so, I have no problem with the word if the Spokanes want to be known that way.
DoneWhatever the reason, if they use 'the Spokanes', I will use that terminology to. It may not have much significance, but I want the article to be agreeable to the most people as possible and its an easy fix. Ill try to switch the language to 'The Spokanes' wherever possible.G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "white people": Some think the phrase isn't idiomatic. White men is, but that is seen by some as sexist, and sometimes it's just wrong. You use "Europeans" in this sense ... but is a person whose family has been in North America for 300 years a European? How about a white person whose family was never in Europe? I don't know. I'll throw this into the pile of things I don't know to handle, yet.
Lol, definitely some questions I dont know how to answer. It used to read just "whites", but that didnt seem clear enough to me some how...change it to whatever you think is best.G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "1883 to the late 19th century": 1883 is the late 19th century, so this could mean anything from a month to 17 years.
Done Good catch. He lists the year when most of the rushes stopped by, 1892.G755648 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "subject to mass migration by blacks": This wouldn't be my choice of language. Was it primarily black men or black families, at that time?
DoneHmm. The book says 'black settlers' came from Roslyn. They were miners, but Im sure they brought families. The book talks about the women during the time too so it must be both. Ill put "African-American"G755648 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made it down to 20th century 21st century, so far. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for looking at the article Dank. Ill probably wait until youre done to do the fixes for most of these, its easier that way.Glad to have your help!G755648 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Continuing. You have dealt with my comments so far. "a sense of doubt regarding aspects of city government": Per WP:WORDS, either leave it out or say something specific. A specific problem should illustrate the general problem.
  • "it will blend residential and retail space with plazas and walking trails": WP:CRYSTALBALL. Kendall Yards is cited to ref 67, retrieved 2008, but a search on that page gives no hits for Kendall. Assuming the cited source supported this sentence back in 2008 ... okay, did those things happen?
FixedI will take out the sentence on city government since, Im not exactly sure what its referring to-I think it might be a loss of confidence in the police but I cant say for sure. I found a different reference that supports the Kendall Yards sentence, a 2010 Journal of Business article. The Kendall Yards project is still happening and I think it will take decades before its fully complete.G755648 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "of which, 59.25 square miles": I changed it to of which 59.25 square miles
  • I got down to Crime. There was a lot to do, so I'm not going to have time to finish, I hope someone else can pick it up from there. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks!G755648 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • One more thing: the general rule at FAC on expandable boxes and scrollboxes in the main text is: don't do it. I know that climate data tables are sometimes hidden in articles, but I just had a look at some other geography articles that are FAs (I stopped after Ann Arbor, Michigan, Antarctica, Australia, Bath, Somerset, Belgrade, and Biscayne National Park), and none of them hide any table in the text by default, including the climate data table. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Done Well, if it is allowed, I would like to keep the table. It has useful info on it that many people would be interested in. I will definitely expand it like the Ann Arbor article. Thanks for your time Dank!G755648 (talk) 04:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it looks fine, and the other edits are fine too ... as long as the Kendall Yards sentence is accurate. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Continuing. The cite to the 2012 figure in Crime was "retrieved in 2011". (Also, check my edit there, I guessed that the date on the first sentence was also 2012, and I guessed a date of 2010 after that.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Everything you did looks great. The American Community Survey was for 2008-2012, you guessed right for the Crime section figures. Ill just change that real quick and its good.G755648 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This time I got down to Economy. I don't get the sense that anyone read the text closely before this was submitted to FAC (there were a lot of mistakes), which is one of the FAC requirements. I won't oppose, but this nomination will probably fail this time around without some help by reviewers. Look over my edits to make sure they're right, and try proofreading the text starting at Economy. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Not really, no. Nominating the article was sort of an impulse, I originally registered just to nominate a featured picture, and that all. Thought doing the article might be worth a shot and my effort and I dont really plan on using this account after this FAC closes. If it passes, thats fantastic, if it doesnt then maybe someone else will finish it some day down the road.
The prose is probably the toughest and most common issue in the FACs and if the article can use a more thorough copy edit, maybe I will tap someone to look into it. I dont think I have the expertise to do it well enough, Im not a grammar and punctuation whiz. There has been some new content that has sort of been hastily integrated in the article. Ill do what I can though. Thanks again DankG755648 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Smyth Report[edit]

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

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

Image check - 2 images with problems

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

The Fifth Element[edit]

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

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

Comments from Dank[edit]

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

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Edgepedia[edit]

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

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

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

Support from Mirokado[edit]

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

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

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

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

Thanks. That was quick!

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

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

Crisco comments support[edit]

Love this movie! Here's my review.

  • Budget - Why not give a footnote instead of hidden text? This will allow you to hedge a bit more, rather than being verifiable but possibly incorrect.
  • Really light on production information in the lead. It took 22 years... did anything happen aside from people being hired? I mean, you dedicate so much text to it in the body, but the lead is sorely lacking.
    • Added some information the lead about why it may have taken so long. Freikorp (talk)
  • it remained the highest-grossing French film at the box-office until the release of The Intouchables in 2011. - what's with giving the reference here? Per WP:LEAD, this should be referenced in the body.
  • but their compatriots determine to seize them for themselves. - perhaps a way of making it clear that the stones are the "them" in question?
  • Plot section is a bit overly detailed. I know less than 700 words is recommended, but a lot of the 640 words of the current plot summary are fat. Is it really pertinent that he was a radio call-in winner (rigged or not?). Is their "consummating their love" (or, really, that whole paragraph) plot relevant, or is it just dénouement? I can imagine that this plot summary could be trimmed to 550 words.
  • While I'm discussing the plot: you don't explain why the Great Evil is returning sooner than "300 years".
    • To the best of my knowledge (which is considerable on this subject) there is no explanation. It is widely considered by fans (and wikipedia users I might add) to be a source of confusion. Freikorp (talk)
      • In that case, let's not be that specific. "in several hundred years" gives some wiggle room without being inaccurate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • You seem to have trimmed this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes sorry I forgot to mention that. I think it would just be easier to leave it out, I know this article and if I say several hundred years IP's will just keep changing it to "300". Hopefully if it doesn't mention it at all there will be less disruption. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The book Science Fiction Film, published by Cambridge University Press, credited the film with exploring the theme of political corruption. - I'd expect the author to be the one we're supposed to mention in text, not the book. Mentioning only the book and publisher gives the impression that the book had no author. This goes for the rest of the journals etc. mentioned as well; these are ideas held by people, not necessarily the journals or the journals' editorial staff. Furthermore, this makes the mention of Susan Hayward and Phil Powrie appear WP:UNDUE, as they are the first authors actually named.
    • I have now specified authors as well as the book and journal. Freikorp (talk)
      • I'd probably trim the publishers though (Cambridge Uni. Press, etc.), but if you prefer them that's fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmm, the only reason I added them was to give it some notability to the source, I mean 'Stefan Brandt' clearly isn't notable enough to have a wiki article, and neither is his book 'Subverting Masculinity'. I thought if I showed that the publisher was notable it would give some indication of why we should value his opinion - because a notable publisher thought it was worthy to print. Do you think this is unnecessary? I have no qualms with removing it, I just thought it serves a purpose of sorts. Freikorp (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
          • IMHO, people who are going to question the reliability and/or weight of the source are usually those who know enough to check the references section (where you have the publisher spelled out). That being said, I'm fine with the way things are now if you'd rather not remove the publishers, and I'm not aware of any policies against including them in-text. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The love story within The Fifth Element was considered to be one of the main narratives in the film, and it faces the same deadline as the main storyline. - "was considered" begs the question "by whom". Just say "the authors considered it" or whatever.
  • The section #Related media is way too short and underdeveloped. It can probably be safely merged into the release section (actually; split off the legacy text as its own section; that should work, and allow you to incorporate these alternative media).
  • He states he was waiting to build a reputation for himself as a filmmaker before he commenced production of the film, so that he would be able to make it with creative control. - Well, after a sentence like that we'd expect to be introduced to one or more films that made Besson well enough known that he could take control. Instead we jump right into the budget, and only then do you mention a film he made.
    • Moved some info around so that information about the 1994 film Leon appears right after that statement. Freikorp (talk)
      • Reworked. Please check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • That's much better, cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Standardize whether your punctuation goes inside or outside of quotation marks.
  • Gaultier also borrowed designs from others to help create his effect. - any examples?
    • Not in the source quoted unfortunately. Text reads: "Gaultier explains that he pulls from past designs - not just his own - to create his effect." Happy to delete this mention entirely if that would be better than not being able to specify whose designs he borrowed. Freikorp (talk)
      • Important enough for the subject. Just was hoping that we could show and not simply tell. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • He relies heavily on the use of orchestral textures and exotic influences, such as the oboe and strings heard as the surgeons prepare to regenerate Leeloo, and the pizzicato as she is reconstructed, as well as the shawm sounds as Leeloo tries to communicate with Korben after she falls into his taxi, and the Middle-Eastern unison strings as he tries to convince her to give herself up. - What a mouthful! can we split this, please?
    • I just deleted the second half of that very long sentence - there are enough examples without the second half anyway. Freikorp (talk)
  • The soundtrack section jumps around a bit. Content then sales information then content again. Perhaps a somewhat more organized presentation would be in order. Also, worth mentioning any of the review comments?
    • Reorganised and a reviewer comment added. Freikorp (talk)
      • Tried reorganizing... what do you think? Also, added two CN tags. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Looks good. I found a source for one of the cn tags. I'm confident that no source specifically backs up the statement: "Part One (titled Lucia di Lammermoor) and Part Two (titled The Diva Dance) of this piece are included as separate but consecutive tracks on the soundtrack" (other than listening to the soundtrack itself) so i've just removed that sentence and the tag with it. Freikorp (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Why not just cite the album itself? We're allowed to do that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Oh I didn't know that lol. Done, though i've never cited an album before so do feel free to check i've filed out enough parameters. Freikorp (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
              • Grand. I've done similar citations with some lists, so I knew it's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps clarify what "exported" film means.
    • Changed to "As of 2011 it still held the record for the French film with the highest foreign box office gross." Freikorp (talk)
  • which called him "the summer's most outrageous special effect" - LA Times or Time?
  • The case was dismissed in 2004 on the grounds that only "tiny fragments" of Giraud's artwork had been used - What about Jodorowsky?
    • Clarified it was "tiny fragments" of the comic, rather than specifically Giraud's artwork. Freikorp (talk)
  • Anybody else give feedback regarding this film? If you mention only Oldman, it comes across as undue weight.
    • Another user added Oldman's comments after I nominated the article for FAC. I'd be more than happy to remove this information on the grounds of undue weight, though i'll have a look for other actors opinions later. Freikorp (talk)
      • If you can get 'em, that'd be great. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Finding this surprisingly difficult - found a basic quote from Willis and added it, will look for more. Freikorp (talk)
          • Having Jovovich or Maïwenn Le Besco would round this out (or Besson himself). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
            • The Ultimate Edition DVD contains featurettes with Tucker and Jovovich, both of whom speak fondly of their experiences working on the film. I was hoping to find something more specific, but i'm hoping this will be enough. Freikorp (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
              • Any direct quotes? You can cite the actual featurette. See Departures for an example of how that works (with the format system my co-author and I used; it can be adapted for this article easily) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
                • Done. Also have a look at my reply to the concern regarding the year the film was set in at the bottom of this discussion :) Freikorp (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for both The Fifth Element and Money Talks. - be clear if this applies to both Tucker and Jovovich, or just one or the other.
    • I'm not 100% sure what the issue is here - i've reworded to "Conversely, Jovovich received a Razzie nomination for Worst Supporting Actress, and Chris Tucker was nominated for Worst New Star for his performances in both The Fifth Element and Money Talks." Does this address your concern? Freikorp (talk)
      • Excellent. Yes, the way you had positioned your subjects suggested (erroneously) that Jovovich could have been in Money Talks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The second disc provides various special features, focusing on visual production, special effects, fashion in the film, featurettes and interviews with Willis, Jovovich, and Tucker, featurettes on the four different alien races in the film, and a featurette on Diva Plavalaguna. - can we avoid having featurettes stated three times in a row?
  • The Ultimate Edition was praised for its special features. - by whom?
  • Suggest linking to newspapers and/or reviewers with articles.
    • In regards to what? Sorry i'm not sure what you mean here. Freikorp (talk)
      • i.e. DVD Talk has an article but is not linked (article could use some work, but that's not FAC relevant). The one that brought this to mind was LA Times, but it appears I forgot that you had already linked it previously. No need to worry about that one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Wikilinked. Looks like the DVD talk article was created after I added the source to this article. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Any further details on the novelization (reviews? Changes in plots as mentioned in RSes? anything?)? How about the games? I'm sure they have reviews you can mention, at least one or two. I mean, you give sound bites for the DVD releases. (TV Tropes says that the PS1 game got on several "worst game of the year" lists... if we can cite that, it's fairly important).
    • Added two game reviews. You'll have to post a link to that TV Tropes article you're talking about if you want me to do anything about that; i'm not familiar with that website and I haven't heard anything else about these lists the game is apparently on. Freikorp (talk)
      • Not cite TV Tropes (its a Wiki, and non-reliable), but the fact. Gamespot has a review here (not familiar enough with WP:VG's RS guidelines to say off it's an RS or not here). IGN (RS) has a review. Game Revolution too (RS). Can't find anything for what TV Tropes claims, but those two (three?) reviews would certainly be plenty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I've now added two reviews for the game adaptation and one review (the only one I could find) for the racing game that is based on the film. I can't find a review for the novelisation from a reliable source (google books doesn't list any reviews of the book either [21]). Freikorp (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Why the discrepancy in film length? Infobox says 126 minutes, but Ebert says 127. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure how that happened - changed to 127. Freikorp (talk)
  • Duplicate links: Gary Oldman — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, i'll begin addressing these issues one at a time and will ping you when i'm done. Freikorp (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Crisco 1492. I've either addressed everything or requested clarification on what you were after. Feel free to strikethrough any resolved issues so I know what you're pleased with. Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Have you been able to consult The Adventure and Discovery of a Film: The Story of The Fifth Element or Valérian: Les Extras de Mézières, tome 2: Mon cinquième élément? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • According to (non-RSes) these two books have information on how Besson approached Mezieres, and on what Besson intended the fifth element to be... might be important. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm certainThe Adventure and Discovery of a Film would prove very useful, i've previously looked into buying a copy. Unfortunately it was limited edition and is out of print. The cheapest I can find a copy for sale is $200 [22]; my fiancé would kill me if I spent that much money on a book lol. Neither my local public or university library has a copy. The other book is not available at any library near me either, though it is more affordable to buy; I don't relish the idea of having to buy it though, and if I ordered a copy it probably wouldn't arrive at my house for a couple weeks anyway as i'd have to order from overseas. Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        • What about an inter-library loan? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I haven't looked into that. I might get a chance to go to the library and ask the day after tomorrow. Freikorp (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Managed to get to the library today. I put in a written request for both books, I was told someone would call me when the book(s) had either come in or if they knew they couldn't get a copy. I was told it might take a week or longer. I'm not sure if Ian Rose is happy for this nomination to stay open just on the chance that a) they can get the books in and b) that said book would have useful information. Would it be a massive problem to just let the issue of comprehensiveness slide for the time being? I mean, the article isn't obviously deficit without said sources, and as I have a clear interest in this article I can assure you that if I ever get a copy of either of the books, I will do my best to improve this article with their information, regardless of whether the article is already promoted to featured status or not. Freikorp (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Comprehensiveness is part of the FAC criteria, so any objections on that count are prima facie actionable. How much a barrier to promotion it should be in this instance is therefore more in the hands of Crisco as an experienced film article editor/reviewer, than in mine as a FAC coordinator. No pressure, Crisco (honestly!) but if it's a stopper for you then given the time this has been open I'd be inclined to archive the nom until the books are obtained and worked into the article. If you think it does meet the criteria after all (but could simply be further improved with the additions) then we may still be on track for promotion shortly, pending image check and resolution of Nimbus' remaining points. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
              • Despite what my students may try and tell you, I'm not evil enough to oppose over that. Yeah, it would be a great addition, but this is already one of the most comprehensive single sources on the internet. I can easily assume that Freikorp will add further information as it becomes available. Images below are dealt with too, so
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I hope that the book does become available. I doubt it would cause a fundamental rewrite of the article, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage (for me, at least). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The public library just called me. It might interest you to know that there wasn't a copy of either of those books in any library in Australia, which is precisely why my local library has decided to purchase The Story of The Fifth Element for their collection. As they have to order it from overseas it will probably take 2-4 weeks to arrive, and they told me they'd put it aside for me so that I can borrow it first. Not surprisingly they weren't interested in ordering the other one as it isn't in English. Freikorp (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I must say, the Australian library system sounds pretty damn good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, any of the special features on the DVDs? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I used to own the original (no special features) version of the DVD; I now own the iTunes copy, which also has no special features. Thankfully, people have uploaded at least some of the special features from the Ultimate edition DVD to YouTube, hence why I was able to cite the interviews with Jovovich and Tucker in the 'Legacy' section. There are snippets for sure that could be added to the article (For example I was surprised to find out via Jovovich's special features interview that after 2 months of repeatedly bleaching her hair and dying it orange her hair started to fall out; she had to wear a wig in the second half of the film) but I don't recall hearing anything of vital importance. Was there a particular part of the 'Production' section that you think could use expanding with potential information from said special features? Freikorp (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not exactly in a position to have the DVD features myself (Indonesia and all that). No, I am not aware of anything particularly important, and there are no obvious gaps in coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • K, so these "Comprehensiveness" questions are all I have left. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nimbus[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source review[edit]

  • Corrected the odd formatting error (including a stray "}").
  • Is The DVD Journal really a Reliable Source? It sure looks amateur, and the "About Us" page doesn't inspire me with confidence.
    • Fair enough. I've removed the three inline citations that DVD Journal was used for. I couldn't find another reference for one of the statements the source backed up in the production sections, so I replace it with some new information. Freikorp (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref#29: page?
    • Well I don't really have a specific page per se, since a large portion of the comic is about the "character named S'Traks, who drives a flying taxicab through the congested air traffic of the vast metropolis on the planet Rubanis." The character and these facts don't all get introduced at the same time if I remember correctly (I don't have acces to the book currently). Does this really need a page number? Or for that matter, does it need a source at all? Freikorp (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Well, other citations to this source give page numbers, so this one appears to be an omission. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I've just removed the source entirely; it wasn't really needed considering that the fact that S'Traks drives a taxi through the planet Rubanis in the comic is still backed up by the source used at the end of the next sentence, which states Korben's character was inspired by S'Traks. Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Are Thierry Arbogast and KEG FX appropriate sources? Are there not other sources that report the awards?
    • The Thierry Arbogast reference is no longer needed, so I removed it. I added it before I found the source that backs up all the Cesar awards nominations and winners. I haven't been able to find a more reliable source than KEG FX for the Saturn Award. The Saturn Awards official website doesn't list the previous nominations for best special effects: [24] IMDb and Movie Collection back it up, but I don't think they're any more reliable. It's the recipients offical webpage, so I was hoping it would be accepted. Given the circumstances, do you think it could be? Freikorp (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • You might get away with it since it's strictly factual data, but another source would be batter. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Guessing these two aren't reliable either, but it's worth asking: Awards and Winners Cinetaka Freikorp (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • The first one's user-generated, and says at the bottom of the page that it gets some of its content from Wikipeida, so it's definitely out. The second one, I'm not sure—I think it's in Portuguese. I wonder if there's a Portuguese speaker who could tell us if it's a RS or not. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • It is Portuguese. On closer inspection the website appears to be some form of movie rental site, and the awards list looks remarkably similar to the one at IMDb (not exactly the same, in a very slightly different order and it doesn't contain two of the awards that IMDb lists). I wouldn't bet that it is reliable. Hoping you'll let me get away with the reference I currently have. Freikorp (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Translations of non-English titles would be nice
    • Done. I haven't bothered to translate "Das fünfte Element" or "Le Cinquième élément", as I think that's a bit condescending. But let me know if you'd like me to do that. Freikorp (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't call it condescending—Wikipedia serves a worldwide audience, many of whom live in places where it's unlikely they'd be familiar with any amount of French or German. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Done. Freikorp (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise ref formatting looks fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Curly Turkey. I've finished initial replies to your concerns. :) Freikorp (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • A quick look suggests to me that all the source review comments are addressed -- Curly? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

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

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

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

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

Referencing errors

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

Image review

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

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

Support

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

Indeed, fixed.

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

Fair enough, fixed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed - that one was aggressive auto-correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment (point 1)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I've read through the article twice and my comments are below. It's a long list, but the great majority of the points are very minor and are easily fixable. My main concern about the article is the length, and I've put that first on this list. I think the article should be split, using summary style. I'd also like to add that the long list of minor points does not detract from my very high opinion of the article and the work that has gone into it. It's a great piece of work.

  • Inserting a question: are you thinking more in terms of splitting this article in two, or moving some subsections into other articles? - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    I've been thinking about that, and I think it would probably be better to move some material to subarticles, replacing the moved material with summary information per summary style. I'd defer to editors expert on this topic, but the section structure in the article at the moment seems exactly right to me, though one could separate out a "background and genesis" section from the "Development" section. That gives this structure: (a) background and genesis; (b) development; (c) operational use; (d) IVA, V and VI; (e) technical description. I'm guessing here, but I would think (c) and (e) would remain almost completely intact in this article, but (b) and probably (d) would become subarticles (probably the same article). The background and genesis wouldn't require a subarticle of this article, but I think an article that fully covers the genesis of radar research and development in the UK starting in the mid-thirties is definitely a different article than this, so it's likely that some of the material here could be moved to that article. The result would be two articles focused on the Mk. IV: this one, and Development of the AI Mk. IV radar, which would be a child of it. That's just a suggestion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This would be one of the longest FAs, if not the very longest, by readable prose size; looking through a few of the top articles in Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length I can't find a longer one. I hate to suggest this, since I know this isn't the first pass through FAC, but have you considered splitting some material to a subarticle? So far I've only read about a third of the article in detail, and can't make a sensible suggestion on how this might be done, but I think it should be considered. And you might end up with two featured articles instead of one that way.
  • Why is "Mk.III" in bold in the second sentence of the lead?
  • As far as I can see you never explain who Robert Watt is -- he's linked (though only in the lead) but I think a parenthetical explanation of his position is necessary, in the body if not in the lead.
  • "The Mk. IV became obsolescent around 1943": "obsolescent" means "becoming obsolete"; wouldn't this be better as "obsolete", or "was obsolescent by"? Though if you stick with "obsolescent" it sounds like the date is probably earlier than 1943.
  • "The Dowding system relied on": I think the reader needs a more direct statement that this is the same thing as the "string of CH stations" mentioned in the previous paragraph. Is the Dowding system the same thing as the CH stations? It seems not because it "relied on a network of reporting stations", which I assume is the CH stations.
  • "Tizard wrote his thoughts in a 27 April 1936 letter": how about "put his thoughts"?
  • "Only one receiver was available, and had to be moved between aircraft for testing": either "which had to be moved" or "and it had to be moved".
  • "Another attempt to revive the RDF 1.5 concept ... was carried out in March 1940": I think "made" is more natural than "carried out".
  • "this was soon sorted out by fitters": "sorted out" is a bit colloquial; how about "resolved"?
  • "and this 200 MHz setting would be common to many radar systems of this era" is uncited; I wouldn't withhold support for this, since I don't think it's controversial, but if you have a citation to hand I'd suggest adding it.
  • "slow advancement in form of ASV": I'm not sure what this means.
  • K8758 is only mentioned in a picture caption; shouldn't it also be mentioned in the text?
  • "Arnold Tustin was called in to consider the problem": can we have a descriptive word or two here, indicating that Tustin was an employee of Metrovick, as I would guess?
  • Why did Bowen want to switch to AC?
  • Is there a suitable link target for "phase shifting circuit" or "phase comparison"?
  • "Metrovick had been told to directly copy ("Chinese") the 1937 design by Percy Hibberd but they had delivered the wrong prototype to Metrovick, who copied it": who is the "they" who delivered the prototype to Metrovick?
  • "Further deliveries were not the Mk. IF and IIF models...": it took me a couple of seconds to realize that this refers to delivery of the Blenheims, not the radar units; it's confusing because of the common Mk. notation. How about "The first Blenheims delivered were the Mk. IF and IIF models; subsequent deliveries were of the Mk. IVF, with a longer nose."?
  • When Lovell says "'the apparatus is tripe even for a television receiver'" is he referring to the AI radar itself? So the fitters thought the radar was poor quality equipment? If so I think this should be made a bit clearer, since the context for the quote is the conditions, not the AI radar itself.
  • Why is "locking timebase" in italics in the discussion of the AIL? I suspect it's because it's not known what this is, per the note at the end of the sentence. I think it might be better to move that note to right after "locking timebase"; that would give the reader an immediate answer to the question of why it's in italics.
  • "to appoint someone to command of the entire night fighting system": presumably should be "to command the".
  • You have both "Bentley Priory" and "Bently Priory".
  • Hanbury Brown is linked at second occurrence instead of first; when you change this, it would be good to give him a word or two of description ("one of the researchers", or "a senior physicist", or whatever's appropriate) since he's a significant figure in the rest of the article.
  • "... in an unsuccessful attempt to smooth them over. This attempt evidently failed": I'd suggest shortening this to "in an attempt to smooth them over, which evidently failed".
  • "Arthur Tedder later admitted to Tizard on 24 January 1940 that": surely the date is wrong here? The events in question were in 1940, weren't they?
  • "due to the change from the long-nose IVF to the glass-nose IF and IIF": the earlier discussion seems to indicate that it was the other way round -- initial Blenheim deliveries were the IF and IIF, but the later deliveries were the IVF.
  • The first mention of "self-exciting concept" doesn't provide any explanation; is this a reference to an earlier discussion that doesn't use this term?
  • This isn't something you need to correct, but aesthetically I have to say I don't like the decision to bold the Mk. IV and subsequent MK numbers towards the end of the article. I don't think it's necessary, and it's visually distracting. However, I think this is within the range of editor discretion, so I wouldn't withhold support for this.
    • I've removed the bolding per MOS:BOLD. I get why it made sense to the writer, but our style manual frowns on it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Hanbury Brown stated that "it did everything that we had originally hoped that airborne radar would do for night-fighting", and notes that this was only a year after the first Mk. I's, but it felt like ten": mixed tenses here -- "stated" and "notes" should match tense.
  • You link EKCO at first mention, but then refer to E.K. Cole; any reason not to just say "EKCO" again?
  • The first mention of Dowding's nickname, "Stuffy", is in the quote from Bowen, with no explanation. How about making the introductory phrase "Bowen relates the outcome ("Stuffy" was Dowding's nickname):"?
  • "A contact for this type of radar had already been sent out in June or July": should this be "contract"?
  • "But Phillips had not ignored AI, but pointed out that": two "but"s in close sequence.
  • "Bowen's demonstration of the early land-based radars against shipping had led to the Army ordering development as Coast Defence (CD) radars in 1936": I think another word or two is needed in the second half -- perhaps "ordering development of the technology as"?
  • What's the hyphen for in "24-CD sets"?
  • The timing in the paragraph about CHL seems odd -- surely the Luftwaffe weren't laying mines in range of CH by August 1939?
  • "As attention turned back to the AI role": I'd suggest making this "As attention turned back to the airborne interception (AI) role", since you use this abbreviation several times later in the article, and readers unfamiliar with the topic may not recall the meaning of AI from the title of the article.
  • The GCI section ends with an uncited statement of the kill rate; I think this should be cited. To avoid a little redundancy in the phrasing I'd also suggest something like this: "in December 1940 the interception rate was 0.5%, by May 1941 with more stations and better familiarity, the interception rate had reached 7%, though the kill rate was lower, at around 2.5%."
  • More generally, why do we have so much information about GCI in this article? Does it bear directly on the Mk. IV? I can see it's a critical part of the development of radar and of the British war effort, but what's the relevance here?
  • "from then the UK would be subject to dramatically lower rates of bombing": I think the tense here is wrong, and I think "from then on" is more natural. How about "from then on the UK was subject to ..."?
  • "Luftwaffe losses were forty bombers and 150 aircrew": why "forty", when you use numerals for all the other numbers in this paragraph?
  • In the picture of the Mosquito, I can't tell what part of the plane is the radome -- I've no background in this area. Is it the nose? Can the caption be more specific?
  • A general comment -- at several points I found myself scanning back through the article to understand the timeline. Read sequentially, the dates are pretty clear, but when I tried to figure out (for example) when the move from Dundee to Cardiff occurred, it took me quite a bit of scrolling up and down to be sure it was 1939. Could you add the year to a couple more places in the story, so that the date context is quickly available when skimming? For example, I'd make it "when they arrived on 5 November 1939" in the "Emergency move" section; and the move to Worth Matravers is not given a date in the article.
  • Until the discussion of the microwave development mentioned Dundee, I'd been under the impression that when the group moved from Dundee to Perth nothing was left in Dundee -- the discussion made it sound as though there was essentially no room there. Going back through I see that I misread it, but there a couple of clarifications that I think would help. First, you don't mention the AMRE ("The Dundee group, now known as the ... AMRE") untill after the discussion of Dundee with reference to the AI team. I think the existence of a relevant group in Dundee should be mentioned no later than the first mention of the AI team's shortlived move to Dundee University. Second, in the Mk. III paragraph you mention "the Dundee teams" and "the Dundee shops"; as far as I can see the reader doesn't know what these phrases mean at that point. Later you say "the main radar research teams in Dundee" which is certainly helpful but would be more useful earlier. And even after going back and forth to the different mentions of Dundee, I am not clear on who or what was moved from Dundee to St. Athan and what groups were left in Dundee.
  • "the crew from IV/NJG.3 defected to the UK": the linked article indicates this is a fighter wing, so perhaps "a crew" would be better than "the crew".
  • "However, the signal no longer had to travel from the RAF fighter and back again, which introduces a 4th power loss of energy as noted in the radar equation": I don't think you need the mention of the radar equation here -- you give a lay description of the advantage in the next sentence, which is sufficient. I'd go with "However, the signal no longer had to travel from the RAF fighter and back again; instead, the signals ..."
  • "This meant that the homing device could only be used for the initial tracking of the target, the final approach would have to be carried out by radar": run-on sentence.
  • The paragraph starting "Homing on the enemy's broadcasts" is evidently intended to convey that the Mk. IV, which had been obsolescent, was given a new role by Serrate which it could fill better than the newer Mk. VII. However, you don't actually say this; I think it would better to be explicit.
  • "It was calculated that one..." this sentence is uncited.
  • "which began to arrive from Pye in late February to demonstrate a host of problems": I don't think this phrasing works; it didn't "arrive to demonstrate" the problems. How about "which began to arrive from Pye in late February, and immediately demonstrated a host of problems"?
  • Two sentences out of three start with "However" towards the end of "Mk. IVA and Mk. V". The paragraph mentions the microwave design in two different places; it might be better to simply mention it once, and say that concerns about delays allowed the Mk. V to go forward, but as the microwave project progressed the Mk. V was first delayed and ultimately cancelled. Can dates be given to any of those events, by the way?
  • "the contracts for over 1,000 units was allowed" -- either "contract" or "were allowed", depending on whether there were multiple contracts.
  • "a NF.II from No. 151": I don't know what this means.
  • "follow-on examples followed": rephrase to avoid repetition of "follow".
  • "A single Hawker Typhoon was experimentally fit with AI Mk. VI radar": should be "fitted", I think.
  • "they operated only briefly, about four months": suggest just "they operated for only about four months".
  • "lengthy trials into 1944": suggest "lengthy trials lasting into 1944".
  • In the "Displays and interpretation" section, I think more explanation is needed -- the blips are just barely visible in thumbnail view, and I didn't notice them, so I assumed that the ground reflection was the blip, and clicked through to find out why there was a discrepancy between the caption and what I was seeing.
  • "their own radar was turned on for the final approach": suggest "the fighter's own radar would be turned on".
  • In the "IFF use" section, why are "direct response" and "indirect interrogation" in italics? And "blip" a couple of paragraphs later?
  • Pardon my ignorance, but what was the IFF for? Why would you want to retransmit the radar signal? As it stands I don't see why this section is relevant to the article, but perhaps that just because I don't understand it at the moment.
  • Many of the alphabetic endnotes are uncited; for some this is fine, as they are clearly comments about the sources, rather than facts taken from the sources (e.g. the "printer's error" comment in note b). However, a couple do seem to me to require citations -- h, l (second sentence), and o.
  • "A new set was built by combining the transmitter unit from the latest ASV units with the EMI receiver and first flew in a Battle in May 1939": I don't think this quite works. How about "A new set, built by combining the transmitter unit from the latest ASV units with the EMI receiver, first flew in a Battle in May 1939"?
  • "To ensure continued supply, in 1940 a destroyer was sent on a secret mission to pick up 25,000 more EF50's and another 250,000 bases, onto which Mullard could build complete tubes": this is a flash-forward, and I think a bit of rephrasing might be good. The timing in relation to the German invasion of Holland also seems relevant. How about something like: "The EF50s became key components of ..., and to ensure continued supply, the following year a destroyer was sent on a secret mission to pick up 25,000 more EF50s and another 250,000 bases, onto which Mullard could build complete tubes. The shipment left the Netherlands just days before the German invasion on 15 May 1940."?
  • A side note: I believe that it should be "EF50s" and not "EF50's". I can't find the reference in the MoS though, so I could be wrong.
  • Can we make the first reference to Bawdsey Manor "Bawdsey Manor, in Suffolk", or "on the Suffolk coast"? It's not a place most readers will have heard of, and for UK readers at least this would help.
  • I'm confused about the timing of events in the Mk. III section. It seems the minimum range controversy came to head after the experimental fitting to 20 Blenheim IFs in April 1940, and the IIIA and IIIB efforts were presumably begun at about that time. Then the team at St Athan "heard of this". What exactly did they hear of that upset them? That other researchers were working on the same gear, cutting them out of the research work and leaving them working on production? Tizard hears of complaints and visits Dundee, and the memo dated 29 March 1940 is after that -- so that's before any aircraft have been fitted with the Mk. III. The only way this makes sense is that the minimum range controversy blew up well before testing in the aircraft. If that's correct, then I think some rewording is needed so the timeline is clearer.
  • "In spite of all of these problems, at a May 2 meeting of the Night Interception Committee": another timing question: if the problems are all found in May, I don't think the committee's decision can be said to be in spite of the problems.
  • "a Beaufighter IF of No. 604": what does "of No. 604" mean?
  • "By this point, the RAF had significantly improved their deployment of GCI radar, had many more night fighter squadrons in service": looks like an incompletely edited sentence. Adding "and" before the second "had" would fix it.
  • "While the first raids were largely a surprise, and met by ineffective responses; on the first raid": a semi-colon can't be used with "while" in this way.
  • "the Tizard Mission, which left for the US in August 1940": according to our article it left in "late September", though the dates it gives are early September. Can you just confirm that the August date is correct?
  • "Interest in the 1.5 m systems began to wane, right at the time that the animosity between Bowen and Rowe was at its maximum": the timing here appears to be after the 12 August demonstration, which seems out of sync with the information given earlier, which makes it appear that Bowen was already out of the AI research group by the end of March, and in July was invited to go on the Tizard Mission.
  • The last sentence of the "AIS, replacement" section is uncited.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Great work, Mike, much more thorough than my light copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I appreciate the compliment (as I also appreciate your copyediting of my own nominations). There are times when being OCD has its uses, but mostly I find the better the articles are, the easier it is to motivate myself to do a really thorough review -- and this is an outstandingly good article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ austral summer
  2. ^ summer