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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Sonic X[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sonic, Conker, that animal you totally knew about already, your little sister, Manaphy, Overly Attached Girlfriend, Batgirl, Kirlia, Gerard Way, the kid I can't give a silly name to because he's already a joke, and a host of other fun friends go on adventures together. (Partially) IN SPACE! You'll probably recognize the intro theme if you were, or had, a kid in the mid-2000s.

Introduction aside, I've been building this article up since early April; it passed GA in early July and has had one (successful) peer review since. Uncommonly, I've added a large amount of content to the page after it passed GA (in the History and Reception areas, specifically), as the reviewer, who unfortunately has recently expressed little desire to stay on Wikipedia, suggested that there might not be enough content for FA. I really, really want to avoid that trap, so I've spent hours and hours gathering every usable source I could find on the Internet. It's been frustrating how little has been written about what I remember being (and, by the available evidence, seems to have been) a very popular show, but I now feel this is the most complete resource on the Internet for this series, even eclipsing the Sonic Wiki's page by having more out-of-universe content. I welcome all input, though I request you look at this with as open a mind as possible considering how few usable sources there are out there. Tezero (talk) 04:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Coments by URDNEXT[edit]

Will be doing a review for the prose shortly. I'll also be adding my comments later today. URDNEXT (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Statue of John Bunyan, Bedford[edit]

Nominator(s): Rich Farmbrough01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

This article is about The Statue of John Bunyan, Bedford. The statue is of a giant in English and Christian literature, was produced by a significant sculptor and artist, was commissioned by a notable member of the nobility, and has been much remarked upon in the 140 years since its unveiling. The unveiling itself was a nine-days wonder. Rich Farmbrough01:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

Russian battleship Pobeda[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Pobeda was one of five Russian pre-dreadnought battleships captured during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She participated in all of the major naval battles of the war and was eventually sunk by Japanese artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur. After the war, she was refloated by the Japanese and incorporated into their navy after three years of repair. She was not very active in Japanese service, serving mostly in training roles, but her most significant service was during the Battle of Tsingtao during World War I when the Japanese besieged the German-held Chinese port. She was disarmed during the early 1920s in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty and may have been broken up around the same time, although some sources suggest that she was not scrapped until the end of World War II. The article passed a MilHist A-class review last month and should be in pretty good shape. I trust, however, that reviewers will point out any infelicities of language or unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Indian Head cent[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that was was in Americans' pockets for most of a century, counting the time that it circulated after they stopped making them. Widely disregarded at the time as too common, it is today both admired and widely collected. The article has had a most searching GAN by TonyTheTiger.Wehwalt (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Evans[edit]

Nominator(s): Unus Multorum (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Oliver Evans, whom I discovered the existence of while travelling through Delaware. He's a bit of a unsung hero of the industrial revolution, and despite a string of really important inventions and designs he has virtually no profile in the minds of the wider public (though not entirely without cause!). After my first FA with Stanley Bruce last year I decided to give it another whirl trying to bring Evans' story to greater attention, so intensively invested to pretty much write this one from scratch. Successfully went through the GA process, now keen to have to shepherd it to the next level. Comments and critiques welcome and appreciated. Unus Multorum (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for working on this. My first thought is about the lead: four well-composed paragraphs are enough. I realize cutting down is difficult, especially when a lot of work was put in the body of the article, but as an introduction and summary it's too much. Hekerui (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

...And Justice for All (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth Metallica studio album, a masterwork of technical thrash and musically, one of their finest hours. I've been working on this article back and forth a year, and think it is ready for a FA candidature at its present state. I'm sure it would be an interesting read for those who will review it.--Retrohead (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by L1A1 FAL[edit]

Source check

Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress Note: for the purpose of clarity, all citation numbers are given as of this revision, unless otherwise noted--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Cites 1, 2 & 3 are all from the band website. Generally, I'm not sure that's supposed to be used as a source, but since its just for release dates for the singles (as opposed to something more controversial like sales numbers or something), I doubt it would be a problem
  • Cite 8 will need fixed, it just goes to a blank page
  • Cite 14, the BBC review, just goes to a blank page
  • Cite 19, 500 greatest metal albums on Google books, is a dead link
  • Cite 28, Disco, Punk, New Wave, Heavy Metal, and More: Music in the 1970s and 1980s on Google books. Is there a page view option for this?
  • Cite 33 goes to CD Universe to cite a review from Q. Is there any other way to verify the Q review?
  • Cite 34 should probably have an "in German" language tag
  • Cite 35 will need an archived page since link no longer works right
  • Cite 37 and 72 seem to be the same; they should be merged
  • Cite 40 original url redirects to the page (at a different url). Perhaps update to the new URL?
  • Cite 43 if this one is referring to a print article, then disregard this comment, but if there is an online article, its missing the url
  • Cite 59, Canadian charts citation, is a dead link

A few other little things here and there, like a few format things to fix, or make more consistent

I've addressed all of your concerns L1A1 FAL, except for replacing the reviews by BBC Music and Q magazine. I think the BBC website is undergoing a reconstruction at the moment, and I'll update the url as soon as I can; as for Q, I don't have the September 1988 edition of the journal, so I went using CD Universal as a reference, which quotes the Q column.--Retrohead (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Album was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry in 2013, which isn't mentioned in the article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Flight Unlimited III[edit]

Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Flight Unlimited III is not a well known game. It bombed commercially and helped to bankrupt its developer, Looking Glass Studios. Even the company's management, and publisher Electronic Arts, seemed uninterested in it. Still, it was technologically advanced for its time, and reviewers loved it.

Now that Flight Unlimited II and Thief II: The Metal Age have been promoted, I only need to get this page through FAC in order to upgrade the Looking Glass Studios Good Topic to a Featured Topic. Because I wrote this article before the other two, it might be a bit weaker; but I'm ready to address any concerns that may arise. Thanks for reading. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Review by PresN
A solid article, as per usual; you're a great writer and I hope you keep finding interesting project to work on, either in LGS or outside. I'm generally worse at prose/grammar than you, so lets see if I can come up with anything in that regards in this review.
  • Well, I feel better already: "Flight Unlimited III is a 1999 flight simulator video game developed Looking Glass Studios" - developed by
  • I've read that sentence 500 times. No idea how that got there. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, the game was well received by critics." - Using however as a transition word for such a short sentence sounds weird to my ears. Maybe it's just me.
  • "several reviewers lauded its simulated physics. Certain critics commented that the physics lacked precision" - since these two statements seem to contradict each other, you might want something acknowledging that dichotomy- "certain other critics", or "certain critics, however,"
  • I rewrote the whole passage in an attempt to address both of your criticisms. See what you think JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Good now. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel morally obligated to frown whenever I see someone not using an oxford comma ("Beechjet 400A and five planes")
  • I think it's a matter of taste. As most of the articles I've worked on suggest, I prefer to leave it out. I don't think there's a guideline either way, as long as the usage is consistent. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There isn't, it's left up to the editor. I frown nonetheless, but it doesn't really matter and I'm not counting it against the article. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "mid-air collisions.[2][3][1]" - ref ordering
  • "and the player may select which weather" - what weather, or which weather options
  • "how many people [were] quitting."" - period outside quote
  • The period is part of the original quote. I haven't read WP:MOS in years, but I'm fairly certain that a period is supposed to go inside quotation marks when the quoted passage ends with one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I only realized a few months ago, so apparently I've been doing it wrong for years, but MOS:LQ says that you only leave the period inside the quote if you're quoting the whole sentence, even if your quote fragment ends with a period. What it doesn't say is apparently this is the British method; I was taught in American school to leave in the period, and replace it with a comma (still inside the quote) if you're continuing the sentence on after. The MOS does not approve of that. I'm fine with it if you want to leave it as-is; it's not exactly the best-followed MOS rule. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Any reason the GameRankings average isn't in the review table?
  • Seemed redundant to have it in the prose and the table, and I couldn't move the score to the table without losing clarity in the prose. I could try to figure something out if you think it's important. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not, just making sure it was purposeful. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "graphically glamorous, and lots of fun."" - period outside quote
  • Period appears in the original text. See above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "experience you can get for a PC." [4]" - same, and remove the space before the ref
  • You use a lot of quotes, which I'm certainly guilty of quite often myself, but I think the single-word quotes e.g. 'the flight physics "good" in general but "overly gentle" for' could be easily paraphrased or left unquoted as too short
  • I thought I was doing better about overquoting this time. Oh well. I changed quoted "good" to unquoted "solid", and added a paraphrase to Saltzman's review, but I'd prefer to leave the rest of the superlatives to the reviewers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly not one to complain; I once brought an article to FAC where the reception section was about 60-70% quotes by volume. (Someone complained, of course). --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you're italicizing online sources in the references, but not the prose. These should really be consistent, unless you add publishers to the references- Ziff Davis for IGN, CBS Interactive for GameSpot, etc. Either that, move the sites from work= to publisher=, or italicize them in the prose.
  • You shouldn't put "staff" as the author if an author is not specified; it's implicitly assumed (who else would it be?), so you just leave it blank. (refs 22, 23, 27)
  • Ref 27 is the only magazine cite you give a publisher for, and that and ref 15 are the only ones with locations given- try to be consistent. Not to mention you wouldn't need to specify that southern San Fransisco is in the United States anyway; you don't do it for Orlando, Florida
  • That ref was added by another user. Fixed it to be consistent with the others. Ref 15 has a location because it's a press release. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
--PresN 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Source review- Passed
  • Sources all look good; they're mainly the same ones as at Flight Unlimited II, which I source reviewed last month. Did a few spotchecks for form's sake, and they were clean. --PresN 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and kind remarks. I've always respected your work as well, between the lists, music articles and multiple featured topics—you've contributed a ridiculous amount to Wikipedia. Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - made a few remarks inline for optional changes, but I'm satisfied with the article. You've contributed a ton, too- the LGS (soon-to-be) featured topic is amazing, and the online print archive has supported tons of articles. Glad I've gotten to work with you on some articles/lists! --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Today's my last day in town before I head back to college, but I'll at least start reviewing by the end of today. Tezero (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Beaune Altarpiece[edit]

Nominators: Ceoil, Victoria 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Large polyptych altarpiece painted by Rogier van der Weyden c. 1445–50. The work was comissioned by Nicolas Rolin and his wife Guigone de Salins as the centerpiece for a hospice at Beaune in France, a region then undergoing decimation from bubonic plague. Patients were not expected to survive their stay; the work served a dual function; comforting the dying with its choice of saints Sebastian and Anthony (both of whom were associated with assisting those suffering from plague), while its exterior Last Judgment panels acts as moralising reminders of the pitfals of sin.

Rolin undertook the commission well aware of his age and mortality, and "having put aside human cares [and] thinking of my own salvation..." set aside large parts of his fortune to care for the dying. Afer his death, de Salins carried on the project, and is buried before the alterpiece's origional position in the church. Ceoil (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments by Johnbod The usual good stuff, but...
  • You should probably work in how common a Doom (painting) was in fresco (now mostly lost), from before 1000, typically on the west wall of churches, so you saw it on your way out, which in a larger sense was what it was also there for at the hospital.

More later, Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I get the point re positioning, but might need help from you sourcing it, esp considering you wrote the artice on Doom paintings. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Can do that, over the w/e. Not sure about the last part though, but it will be somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Stroma, Scotland[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article for consideration as a featured article. It covers the subject of Stroma, an island off the north coast of Scotland that was abandoned 50 years ago after a population collapse. Stroma is now completely uninhabited; visitors to Orkney will be familiar with the sight from the ferries of the island's ruined houses, which are also visible from the mainland. As well as telling the often colourful story of the island and its former inhabitants, it illustrates the struggle that many small island communities have faced in staying viable. It received a very good response from readers when it ran on DYK some months ago and has recently passed a Good Article review. Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

1850 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This article resurrects a series of long-forgotten hurricanes which collectively had their greatest impact on the northeastern United States. The 1850 season falls just outside the scope of the official hurricane database (1851–present), so the information in this article is more historical than it is scientific. After piecing together many nuggets of pertinent information, I've crafted what is to my knowledge the first true account of the "1850 Atlantic hurricane season". The article is important for a couple reasons. First, it serves as a reminder that cities like Baltimore and New York have long histories of hurricane impacts, so recent storms like Isabel and Sandy are not quite as incredible as one might believe. Also, some weather enthusiasts believe an expansion of the hurricane database might be in order, so there's a chance this article might prove useful to future hurricane researchers looking for sources. Since nobody on the planet remembers any of these storms (save perhaps a few tortoises), you might be interested to read the article and live vicariously through our ancestors. Thanks for taking a look! – Juliancolton | Talk 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment – brief for the moment, as I'm a bit short of time. There are a couple of sentences in the lead you should look at:

  • "Although meteorological records are sparse and generally incomplete, three significant tropical cyclones affected the eastern United States, each causing some degree of damage." The sentence is unsatisfactory as it stands; it needs words such as "they indicate that" after "incomplete"
  • "However, it is impossible to confirm the origins of these events without modern reanalysis efforts." Does that mean it would be possible to confirm the origins of these events if someone used "modern reanalysis efforts", whatever these may be? If so, why has no one done so?

I will try to revisit later and take a more detailed look at this encouragingly concise article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a peek, and I look forward to additional suggestions for improvements. I've added "it is known that" to the first sentence you highlighted. After considering the reanalysis line for a while, I decided it was probably unnecessary and likely to prompt more questions than it answered... removed. –

Juliancolton | Talk 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The trouble with wording like "it is known" is that it positively invites someone to add [by whom?]. The wording I've suggested seems to meet the circumstances, and would avoid further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments A few more, mainly minor nitpicks/suggestions:

  • "lost to a Smithsonian Institution fire" – wording niggles slightly: "in a..." seems more usual in this context.
  • I would delete the unnecessary words "additionally" and "highly"
  • "compromised" is an odd choice of word, meaning damaged or destroyed. "Downed" is used later on.
  • "multiple coaster vessels wrecked along the coast" → "were wrecked".
  • "far northern" – as a single adjective, possibly hyphenate?
  • "a hurricane was felt upwind" – I'm not familiar with hurricanespeak, but "felt" seems strange here. Also: suggest you delete "also" later in the same sentence.
  • "450 ft (150 yds) long and 60 ft (20 yds) high". The parentheses should give metric equivalents, not alternative imperial measures.
  • Everyday speech, e.g. "much damage", should not be in quotes.
  • What as the Osceola?
  • "precipitation" – why not "rain"?
  • The June/July "other storms" should receive a brief mention in the lead, since you have awarded them a short section in the main article

Otherwise the article is an excellent example of its genre. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources review
  • Refs 3, 6, 19, 23, 27: the linked pages do not state the source
  • Ref 5: how does the data on the linked page support the statement cited to it?
  • Refs 21 and 22 appear to be showing each other's source: 21 is NOAA, 22 is NWS

Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This is my second nomination of this article. The first one was closed solely because not enough reviewers contributed. For evidence of that, please visit /archive1. Please comment and review, I could use as many people, as many reviews, and as much assistance as I can get.

Briarcliff Manor is a small village in the New York suburbs. It has plenty of interesting history and quite a few notable residents. The village also has a number of parks and historic buildings.

After I saw this article a few months back, I realized that it needed quite a bit of work. I created a user sandbox page and wrote a draft, which was peer reviewed by three users. I later published the article on the mainspace and submitted it as a Good Article candidate, which it passed. I'd hope you can help make the article even better - I believe there's always room for improvement.--ɱ (talk) 20:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

Support as per comments below. URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • What bugs me abound the lead and infobox, is the lack of refs throughout them. When you wanna make it to FA, AFAIK, you need reliable sources to back every statement you make, specially in the lead.
According to a number or rules including WP:WHYCITE, information shouldn't be cited in the lead and infobox, especially if it's repeated in the sections below with reliable sources, which it is in every case here.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright then. URDNEXT (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't understand the first sentence.
It's saying that Briarcliff is a suburban village in Westchester County, NY and is less than 30 miles north of NYC. Can you be more specific what your issue is with the sentence?--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It says: "Briarcliff Manor's original settlement was known as Whitson's Corners". I don't get the original settlement thing? What is it? I think you should rephrase that, ɱ URDNEXT (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
If I reword that as "Briarcliff Manor's settlement was originally known as...", that would be okay?--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that the word settlement is a bit, I don't know... Weird. I think if you used an alternative it would be easier to understand. URDNEXT (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, the area may have had other names when it was native American land or when there were a few farms in the area, but the first proper settlement was named Whitson's Corners. I think it's alright.--ɱ (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
So, you want to add in "it was"? That's fine with me, although it's unnecessary wording.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Not really. It makes the prose flow better. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Miniapolis suggested it too, and it's minor.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's generally attributed to the fact that Scarborough residents generally wanted to feel less like they were like just another part of Briarcliff; they like to be identified as residents of Scarborough.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Put this in the article and my issue is solved. URDNEXT (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I know, but it's not very factual and not very well supported by reliable sources. I'll see what I can put in.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, done.--ɱ (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That should make it more clear; done.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Progressive era to present day[edit]
  • {{He bought his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890,[1] and rapidly added to his property}} I can't understand this sentence. If these were his first acres, how did he already have property there?
He didn't already have property there, the 236 acres were his first. Perhaps the wording suggests that he bought land before that? It's unlikely I can make it any clearer.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a wording conflict in this sentence. You said something then you contradicted it. You started saying he bought his first acres, which added to his property. Try this:
"He purchased his first 236 acres (96 ha) in 1890, and then quickly expanded his property..." URDNEXT (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The part about rapidly adding relates to the 40 parcels, not the 236 acres, but I see how you're confused. Should I reword it to be more clear?--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll try something.--ɱ (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks.--ɱ (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Will be back for more! URDNEXT (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I replied to your comments so far. Thanks for helping out.--ɱ (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It was my pleasure, ɱ! Now do me a favor, and take this to FA no matter what. I'm here to help! URDNEXT (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Miniapolis[edit]

My review focuses primarily on the prose.

I know, but there's nothing I feel comfortable with giving its own article. Do you have any thoughts?--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
You might move some content into Briarcliff Manor-related articles, since this article (an overview) is quite long. Miniapolis 23:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I've already done that with the history section, although I don't think any other sections are long enough or would be independently notable enough to stand on their own. But please, be bold and try something, unless you'd like to suggest something.--ɱ (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
As well, longer articles have passed as FAs, as is indicated here: Wikipedia:Featured articles/By length.--ɱ (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this is your nomination; my job here is to review the article and suggest improvements ("Length" is FA criterion #4). Miniapolis 00:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the list, but my job is to check compliance with policy, applicable guidelines and the MOS. "Longer" doesn't equal "better". Miniapolis 00:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I know, I know, although I don't easily have a solution to this problem. Can you suggest something and I'll try to work from there? As well, criterion 4 is sufficiently vague to allow articles like Barack Obama to reach FA. It shouldn't restrict Briarcliff Manor from reaching it. On the other hand, I'd like to make the article shorter.--ɱ (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • In the lead, I think "less than 30 miles (48 km) north of New York City" is too vague; exact mileage (with conversion to km) is better.
Well, for a village that's 6.7 sq. mi., I'm not sure how you can be more precise than <30 mi.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"Geographically" is implied by "shared" (no comma needed before). " ... ; it is served" is less choppy as ", and is served" (much as I love semicolons to tie short sentences :-)).

I think it is good to clarify 'geographically', especially when using a term like 'shared' that often conveys a more literal sense. I'll replace the semicolon there.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Names": "John H. Whitson's house the Crossways" needs commas after "house" and "Crossways". " ... until [it was] renamed ..." needs fixing.
Done.--ɱ (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I agree with the closer of the first archive that this article needs a formal peer review; IMO, it does not meet FA criteria 1d (neutrality) and 4 (length appropriate to the topic). Although the nominator and I seem to disagree on whether the article is too long, a related issue is its vaguely promotional tone (partly due, perhaps, to the large number of sources published—or commissioned—by the village). A source review is also needed. There is a numbing amount of detail in several sections, particularly "Neighborhoods", "Parks and recreation" and "Notable people", and my comments were becoming more appropriate for a PR than for an FAC (which is less about article improvement than about evaluating whether an article meets the FACR). Miniapolis 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Miniapolis, for such a long article, I'd assume that there would be minor problems that we'd have to dig to find. I have already had a number of people review it and OK it. A peer review wouldn't give me that much more. You should read my further comments to Ian Rose (here), who agreed with me and was willing to allow me to immediately reopen the FA review. With regard to neutrality, I would like you to cite examples. I believe that all facts are neutral, factual, and encyclopedic. The village has not published or commissioned many of my sources; quite a number of them come from the independent Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, which is a professional and respected organization for research. With regard to a "numbing amount of detail", this is an online encyclopedia. There is no limit on the amount of detail we can go into. The only real issue with great detail is it increases page size, which can be fixed other ways. Readers and Wikipedians generally want the most detail possible in such specific articles.--ɱ (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
By far my largest source was The Changing Landscape, an independently-published and independently-written 300-page volume detailing village history and other aspects. It makes no attempts to be promotional.--ɱ (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Miniapolis: As well, if you read Ian Rose's talk page, it better details that he suggested a peer review not based on the article's quality, but based on the fact that it might garner the attention of more editors. He didn't fail it for any lack of quality, merely for only one review in the month-long period, and no responses for a week after that.--ɱ (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My comments are based on the article, which is little changed (except for some apparent reverts) from when I copyedited it at your request as a userspace draft several months ago. Pinging individuals to look over an article (what you seem to consider "peer review") is very different from a formal process by disinterested editors. Due to the recent influx of paid editors on WP attempting to "spin" articles for clients, I'm sensitive to POV. I'm requesting a source review due to possible plagiarism issues, since I found verbatim copy with inadequate attribution (with a footnote, but without quotation marks) accidentally while checking a source during the copyedit. A formal peer review would address issues such as these, but I see haste in trying to get this article to FA. Miniapolis 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) & Boghog (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The initiation of this FAC marks eight months since the first FAC nomination was created...

Sources: this link contains all the WP:PAYWALLED papers cited in the amphetamine article. The file names reflect the ref name from the source (i.e., these papers were named according to <ref name="File name">).

Ian Rose, following your advice from the last FAC, I'm pinging everyone from previous FAC nominations except Shudde, since I have a strong aversion to interacting with that editor.

@Anypodetos, Aa77zz, Hamiltonstone, The Sceptical Chymist, and John: Do any of you have any comments on the current state of the article? The previous FAC nomination received minimal reviewer input, so the coordinators suggested I seek further input from you. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ian Rose, Anypodetos, Aa77zz, Hamiltonstone, The Sceptical Chymist, John, Nikkimaria: sorry if this is the second WP:ECHO notification you're receiving; AmericanLemming mentioned the notification didn't go through so I'm trying again. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I received both notifications FWIW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from AmericanLemming[edit]

@AmericanLemming: I've started the 4th FAC, so it may be best to continue the remainder of your review here. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. I'd like to apologize for disappearing for the past four days, but I flew from Wisconsin to Houston on Wednesday, drove eight hours to Oklahoma and moved into my dorm room on Thursday, and I've been catching up on sleep the past two days. By the way, User:Seppi333, I don't think you've actually pinged me or the other editors, because I didn't get a notification. While editor apathy may have had something to do with the total lack of comments the third time around, it may also have something to do with not pinging the past reviewers correctly. To get another editor's attention, you can leave a message on their talk page, or you can use [[User:Example]], I think. For more information on the matter, see Wikipedia:Notifications, especially the explanation of why they sometimes don't work. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In other news, my semester starts on Monday, which may interfere with my ability to finish my review, but I'll do my best. You've put dozens of hours of work into this article, and I'd hate to see your efforts go unrecognized. Even if the article doesn't deserve the FA star right now, it's pretty close. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It's actually closer to a couple hundred hours, especially if you include the time it took to make the annotated images. Face-wink.svg
In any event, I suppose the WP:ECHO feature didn't function since I used the feature while creating the page with several signatures. I'll go ahead and try it again... hopefully I'm not echo-spamming everyone though, hehe. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note to FAC delegates: Before I review this article at FAC, I should mention what I've already looked at during my informal peer review on the article talk page. I have proof-read the lead and the "Uses", "Contraindications", and "Side effects" sections for prose quality, comprehensiveness, and intelligibility to the non-expert (that is, me). I've made 14 comments, all of which Seppi333 has addressed, and I've made 18 edits to the article itself. I plan to slowly but steadily work my way through the rest of the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

@Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed your three bulleted concerns from the previous review, though I'm not entirely certain what you were referring to when you mentioned the italics; was this present in the refs, the article, or both? I made a few cuts in the article where the added stress wasn't completely necessary. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: I followed the ref formatting for the medication guide work/publisher fields as used on Bupropion, since it's the only current pharmaceutical FA and it recently went through a FAR. Most of the citations from used on amphetamine are drafted/published by a pharmaceutical company and hosted on that site. Consequently, I ended up placing the pharmaceutical company that copyrighted the medication guide in the publisher field to maintain concordance with bupropion's formatting. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 10:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Axl[edit]

  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Based upon the quantity of seized and confiscated drugs and drug precursors worldwide, illicit amphetamine production and trafficking is much less prevalent than that of methamphetamine; however, in some parts of Europe, amphetamine is more prevalent than methamphetamine." It is unclear to me why the lead section specifically draws a comparison with the prevalence of methamphetamine. This comparison is only helpful if the reader already has an idea of the usage of methamphetamine. (I certainly don't know that.) Why not mention cannabis, MDMA, or cocaine? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Axl:The lead statement was a summary of Amphetamine#History, society, and culture, specifically the statements "Amphetamine is still illegally synthesized today in clandestine labs and sold on the black market, primarily in European countries.[23] Outside Europe, the illicit market for amphetamine is much smaller than the market for methamphetamine.[23]" The comparison to meth in that section was included for two reasons: the first is the amalgamation of amphetamine and methamphetamine's society and culture sections into the history and culture of substituted amphetamines article (they have a fair amount of overlapping historical/sociocultural aspects, hence the merge). The second reason is that amphetamine, MDMA, and methamphetamine were grouped together in a very large section with detailed analysis/comparison in the World Drug Report ref, e.g., see pages 123-135(they share very similar synthesis methods and precursor compounds). Cocaine/cannabis were covered in different sections with no comparisons to amphetamine-type stimulants. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: MDMA was also included in the lead comparison a while ago, but Exercisephys removed it. The illicit production of MDMA is much less prevalent than amphetamine/methamphetamine production though (it's harder to make and the precursors are more difficult to acquire than amph/meth). I can re-add it to the lead and body if you think it's worth including. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that it is helpful to the reader to include a comparison with methamphetamine and/or MDMA in the lead section. It would be far more useful to indicate how many people use amphetamine illegally. This source might be helpful. Perhaps you could provide some sort of ranking among the illicit drugs (in terms of prevalence of use)? Also, there should be an indication somewhere in the article of the amount of money (street value?) of amphetamine sold per year.
All of this information doesn't necessarily need to be in the lead section, but it certainly should be in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've added the usage statistics of "amphetamines" (amph/meth) over the past year in the EU member states. Since price for amph varies locally in the EU (6-38 euros/g), I used the total confiscated mass instead of total average street value. Diff Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you rounded 0.9% up to "roughly 1%". Otherwise, the information that you have added is helpful. However that source has more information available. It includes an estimate of price (either €6–38 or €9–23 per gram) and variation in purity. Ideally, I would like to see an estimate of total usage rather than seizure. Also, I would like to see a ranking of prevalence among the other illicit drugs.
I note that you did not remove the comparison with methamphetamine from the lead section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - Better? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! Although I am a little surprised that the source separates opiates from opioids. My understanding is that opiates are directly derived from opium, while opioids also include the synthetic/semi-synthetic drugs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Presently, it is typically prescribed as Adderall." "Presently" is often used to mean "Soon". Perhaps "Currently" would be better? Also, "it" could be inferred to mean "Benzedrine" on the basis of the preceding sentence. It may be better to spell out "pharmaceutical amphetamine". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Long-term amphetamine exposure in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage, but, in individuals with ADHD, stimulants appear to improve brain development and nerve growth." The term "stimulants" is rather vague. Perhaps change this to "amphetamine" or "stimulants such as amphetamine"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - this is more or less how it was written a week or two ago. Lots of edits to this section recently. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 11:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't help. What are "ADHD stimulants"? These could be inferred to mean environmental factors that provoke ADHD. Actually, on second thoughts, my second suggestion would be better as "stimulant drugs such as amphetamine". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - this better? Little more succinct. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Æthelwold ætheling[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Æthelwold, who was the son of Alfred the Great's older brother, King Æthelred I. Æthelwold thus had a strong claim to the throne of Wessex. He rebelled after Alfred's death, but was killed at the Battle of the Holme. He has been described as "one of the 'Nearly Men' of early medieval Europe". Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Support – I had my say at the A class review in June. I commented at the time that I thought the article was of FA quality, and rereading it I remain of that opinion. Top-notch prose, comprehensive as far as a layman can judge, balanced, well illustrated, and referenced to a good range of sources. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support seems an excellent article and covers far more about Æthelwold than I was aware we knew. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC).

Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Madman's Drum[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The second of Lynd Ward's wordless novels, executed in uncaptioned wood engravings. It is more ambitious than the first, and perhaps less successfully executed—the relatively complicated plot seems more than the young Ward was yet able to handle. Still one of the outstanding examples of an artistic genre that bloomed far too briefly. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I can't support at the moment, as I believe that a bit more work is necessary. I see no basic problems, however. The idea of a "wordless novel" is intriguing – perhaps we should develop the concept of wordless Wikipedia articles.

  • "...and the fateful consequences it has for him and his family." Clarify whether "it" refers to the theft or to the drum itself
    • I've changed it to "and the fateful consequences of his actions for him and his family." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ward was more ambitious with this second work in the medium, and formed more nuanced characters, and a more developed and complicated plot, and explicit in his outrage at social injustice." Three "ands" in the sentence indicates the need to rephrase. Also, "was" needed before "explicit".
    • Changed to "Ward was more ambitious with this second work in the medium: the characters are more nuanced, the plot more developed and complicated, and his outrage at social injustice more explicit". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The last two sentences of the lead are connected, the second presumably being a consequence of the first. I would make this connection clearer, by combining the sentences.
  • I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "demon-faced drum". The brief description is OK in the lead, but a word of explanation in the synopsis might be helpful, e.g. a drum bearing the image of a demon.
    • Reworded to "A slave trader steals from an African he murders a drum bearing the face of a demon". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Driven insane by the loss of all who were close to him, he loses his mind..." Some redundancy of words here (we don't need "driven insane" and "loses his mind").
  • There is no need to repeat Lynd Ward's dates here, and since there is a link to the Harry Ward article, his dates should also be removed – same applies to Masereel and Nuckel, later.
(Added): I have always understood that we do not add birth-death dates when the subjects are linked, but I cannot remember the precise MOS guideline. However, if you feel these dates should be kept, MOS:DOB specifically requires that both years be given in full – which you have done in most instances but not for Lyn Ward. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I was mulling this over and forgot to stop mulling. I think I prefer to have the dates (I like to know just how comtemporary his comtemporaries are). I used to always use the full years until someone in an FAC told me I was supposed to shorten them. I've gone with full years for Ward, Masereel, and Nückel, and dropped them for Ward Sr. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggested reword: "Throughout his career, Ward displayed..." → "Throughout his career, the younger Ward displayed...", and later on, "He was drawn..."
  • Do we know what discipline he graduated in?
  • "he hoped explore" → "he hoped to explore"
Production and publishing history
  • You could add to this brief section details of the book's 2010 reissue by the Library of America, in a two-volume edition, details here
    • Okay, I've added this and expanded the publication history. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 22:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Style and analysis
  • "The large cast of characters are distinguished..." → "is distinguished"
  • "A wide range of emotion..." → "emotions"
  • Try to avoid repeat of "such as" in the first line of third para.
  • The sentence beginning "Ward broadens..." is overlong and complex, and could advantageously be split
  • "the "madman" in the tale" – do you mean "the 'madman' in the title"?
    • I don't understand—it's not a quote-within-quotes. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry I confused you with quotes; my intended point was simply that the word "title" seems preferable to "tale". Reading the sentence again, I see that it requires the words "one of" before "a number of", to make sense. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Reception and legacy
  • Although you begin the section by saying that the book's 1930 release was well-received, you mostly quote two reviewers ("E.P." and Spiegelman) who are strongly critical. Can you find more material with which to redress this balance?
    • I've had little luck tracking down contemporary reviews. Walker states Madman's Drum was "published in 1930 to great acclaim", but doesn't cite a source. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Henry Murray used two images in his Thematic Apperception Test..." – two images from what?
  • "uneven homework" → "uneven artwork", surely, or better: "artwork of uneven quality".
    • Yikes! Fixed. One of those things a spellcecker will never find for you. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have corrected the JSTOR link to the E.P. review in Burlington's Magazine. In this review the writer makes the point that whereas the reader of God's Man was assisted by captions, the illustrations in Madman's Drum are entirely without guidance which, he says, makes the story difficult if not impossible to follow. This is, I think, a point worth making in your article.
    • What he means by "occasional caption by way of a Pole star" was the chapter titles—the images themselves are uncaptioned. I've rewritten as "A reviewer for The Burlington Magazine in 1931 judged the book a failed experiment, finding the artwork uneven and the narrative hard to follow without even chapter titles as textual guidance that Gods' Man had." Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The "legacy" element – the second and third sentences of the first paragraph – is weak. Berona's 2003 article has more to say about the failure of these early wordless novels to establish a genre, and this material should be incorporated. Also, I think this whole section needs reorganizing. The second paragraph, suitably enhanced, should follow the first sentence of the first paragraph, while the "legacy" material, again properly enhanced, should form the second paragraph.
    • I've expanded and reworded as you've suggested, and added a couple of other things about the gradual decline in sales of Ward's books, and how few wordless novelists produced more than a single book. What do you think of it now? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It still seems to me that the three paragraphs provide a reception → legacy → reception sequence. Recommned that you reverse the order of second and third paragraphs, as a more logical order. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Although I think the article is well on the way, I think it needs a little more work before it is promotable. I will look at it again in the light of your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for looking at this, and actually checking out my sources. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Support subject to sources and image clearance. I have one outstanding point on the final section (see above) which you may wish to consider. Otherwise, good responses to my issues. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Through a period of four weeks I have worked on the article and expanded it from this to what it looks today. I found a decent amount of information which I placed within the article page. I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I hope the prose is good since I'm not a native English speaker. 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) 18:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The Seinfeld Chronicles[edit]

Nominator(s): --Music26/11 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the pilot episode of Seinfeld I've worked on it for some time now and feel it is ready for FAC, and here we are. My only personal concern at this time is the information regarding claire the waitress, which is not so much info about casting for the character, as it is about why she was removed from the show, so perhaps it should be (re)moved. Anyway I'd like to hear your opinion about it. Thanks in advance.--Music26/11 15:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments taking a look now. Will jot notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Seinfeld and David wrote a TV pilot as they felt their "show about nothing" concept wouldn't sustain that long. - "sustain" used oddly here - I know what you're getting at but not alternative is jumping out.....
- Better now?--Music26/11 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
prompted the network executives to decide not to pick up the show for a first season. - could probably reduce three verbs to two here.....
- Better now?--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Jep Epstein - I'd use a couple of descriptors to introduce who he is at first mention
- Do you have any suggestions? He's a composer, I think it would be kinda weird for the sentence to read "The music used in the episode was composed by composer Jep Epstein..." as the 'composer' bit would be fairly obvious.--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree - ok nevermind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Kenny Kramer initially demanded that he'd play the part of Kessler - don't abbreviate verbs - a bit informal
- Done, I've also removed quite a few more through a control+F search.--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
However, David did not want this and was able to talk him out of it - be good to add why
- Source doesn't say (you can look it up on youtube for verification btw), it only says Kenny Kramer wanted to play kramer, and then moves on to the casting process of Richards. However, as it isn't explicitly stated that David talked him out of it I've re-written the sentence but I have not been able to find information as to why Kenny Kramer did not put his foot down.--Music26/11 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
ok nevermind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
"'David wasn't sure about casting Richards - as above
- Done.--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
as he was trying to cast an actor that physically resembled the original Kramer - "physically" redundant
- Done, well spotted ;).--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
has stated that she was not aware of the pilot before becoming a regular on the show, but she'll never watch it out of superstition - why "but" here - also another appreviation
- Abbreviation fixed, but the "but" part, the sentence seems weird to me if I remove the word, suggestions perhaps?
I think "and" is fine as the two segments are not contrastive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Despite the "weak" rating - use a word that means we can ditch the quote marks
- Done.--Music26/11 23:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Make all the reference dates have consistent format e.g. "15 January 2014"
- Done.--Music26/11 14:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

cautious support Otherwise looking goodish for prose and comprehensiveness I think....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an important order of mammals, the rodents. Three of us (assisted by DrChrissy and others) have been beavering away at it for months and have recently brought it successfully through GAN. We think rodents are fascinating animals and hope you think that too, so please don't rat on us but start burrowing in. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have two drive-by comments, I suppose. The first is somewhat facetious. In the "Standard classification" subsection lemmings aren't listed under the family "Cricetidae", and I think they should be (notice my username?) Anyway, I guess that doesn't really matter. On a more serious note, the "Interactions with humans" section only talks about people eating them, keeping them as pets, and using them as lab rats (literally, in some cases). There's absolutely nothing about their depiction in popular culture. Now, you don't need a whole five paragraphs about that (unless you want to put that much effort in), but the pinniped article has a nice one-paragraph summary under the Human relations section; I'd use that as a model. There is no Rodents in popular culture article, at least as far as I can tell, but just include it in a hatnote; there's nothing wrong with red links in FAs. Other than that, the article appears to be quite comprehensive. Good work! AmericanLemming (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the lemmings under Cricetidae (I hope you weren't offended!) and we will work on a paragraph or two on "Rodents in popular culture". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hold on. I decided against having a popular culture section because of how large and diverse the group is and such a section is better suited for individual groups like mice or beaver. Unlike bat or shark, there is no cultural "rodent". Pinniped is also not a good comparison as they are far less diverse and culture pretty much knows them all as "seals" (the walrus being the only species with a significant cultural identity). It would be almost like having a "Mammals in popular culture" section for Mammal or "Carnivorians in popular culture" section for Carnivora. Another FA article Primate also doesn't have a popular culture section and I believe for the same reason. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your point. I was wondering whether at some point this issue had already been discussed. Well, I can't really argue with the reasons you've given for not having such a section. Also, searching "rodents in popular culture" in Google, Amazon, and JSTOR doesn't bring up anything of substance, so it would be difficult to write a paragraph on the subject. I did find "Rats-Friends or Foes" in The Journal of Popular Culture, but that would fit better in the rat article than this one. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We have made a start on drafting a short section so might as well complete it. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. That's just the sort of thing I was looking for: short and to the point. A few comments: In the first paragraph on rats, two important literary examples are missing: "The Pit and the Pendulum" by famed Gothic writer Edgar Allen Poe (rats swarm over the protagonist and try to eat him) and the children's classic Charlotte's Web by E.B. White (the gluttonous rat Templeton plays an important role in the plot.) In the second paragraph, we would be remiss not to mention that Mickey Mouse is Disney's mascot to this very day. Third, a good literary example of rats being portrayed as evil and mice being portrayed as good can be found in the late Brian Jacques' Redwall series of books (see the Characters section. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The section is all about rats and mice and not rodents. I've asked Cwmhiraeth to remove it. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you position on the matter; if rats and mice are the most commonly represented rodents in popular culture, then it makes sense to focus on them. But in the case we do end up removing it, I'd suggest copying and pasting it to the lead section of the List of fictional rodents article. That way Cwmhiraeth's work doesn't go to waste and the aforementioned article gets a decent lead section (right now it's one sentence long). AmericanLemming (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I moved the text to the fictional rodents article. I hope this slight disagreement will not affect your support for the article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Emotions" section has 2 paragraphs (even though they both are addressing the same point). The first paragraph describes the theory and methodology of a cognitive test. This seems to stray away from the topic of rodents - it is a paragraph about an experiment, not about rodents. The second paragraph is about the result of how a some rats did on the test. This is only about rats - is the experiment saying this result is applicable to rodents in general or just rats (that paragraph may be better suited for the rats article)? maclean (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment. I think I introduced this section. The cognitive bias test is reasonably difficult to understand in principle and practice, and so I described it in a little detail. On reflection, this might be a little long - I was hoping to avoid the reader having to flick to another article to understand this section. The study in rats is extremely interesting because the high frequency ultrasonic call is one of the few contenders of indicating positive welfare that we are currently aware of (think of all the other indicators - they indicate negative welfare, or neutrality). Current knowledge as that only the rat emits this ultrasonic call so it is specific to rats, however, that does not mean that other rodents do not experience the same emotion/s. Remember the rat is widely used as a laboratory animal for reasons of convenience in these studies. Who knows, there might be "Happy Hamsters", "Merry Mice" and "Cheerful Chinchillas" ...but they have yet to be tested.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead could do with a little massaging.....
continuously growing incisors - hyphen here?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
About forty percent of all species of mammal are rodents - I don't like the singular/plural juxtaposition here...I'd go with "About forty percent of all mammal species are rodents"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
''The most diversified mammalian clade, they can be found in a variety of terrestrial habitats including human-made environments. - singular/plural subject
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well known rodents include mice, rats, squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, and hamsters, but rabbits, hares and pikas are no longer considered to be rodents. - two "rodents' in the one sentence
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite a few "rodents" in para 2 of lead - if we can pare down any of these with clever use of passive etc. that'd be good....
Reduced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
sometimes even breaching oceans - odd verb choice here....better one would be prudent
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"'Rodents interact with humans in various ways, and have been put to use as food, in clothing, as pets and as laboratory animals in research. - the facts themselves illustrate the diversity - I'd chop the bolded bit
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd link pelage, ultraviolet light. enamel, dentine, tundra, hydrological
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
''Rodents are capable of gnawing though even the toughest husks, pods and seed shells - needs a cite...also some elaboration on which species are strongest etc.
Thank you for your comments. I removed the uncited sentence, there's more about feeding later in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Bat detectors are often used by pet owners for this purpose." - source?
  • "In the eusocial mole rats, a single female monopolizes mating from at least three males." - source?
  • Don't include quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
  • FN5: link goes to a different site than is cited
  • Dead links
  • Several of the refs have stray punctuation, particularly the .". string
  • Formatting of FN111 does not match similar refs; same with FN113
  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include publishers
  • Use a consistent date formatting
  • FN116: missing italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sind sparrow[edit]

Nominator(s): —innotata 07:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is article is about a somewhat obscure bird, and I think it meets the FA criteria by covering most of what there is worth saying about this species. Shyamal also contributed a good bit, and thanks to him and J. M. Garg for the article being well illustrated with images and a distribution map. —innotata 07:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

There are places where I think the text might need polishing.

  • "The Sind sparrow is very similar to the house sparrow, and both sexes resemble house sparrows, but it is slightly smaller and males and females each have features that distinguish them from the house sparrow." This is clunky with "house sparrow" used three times.
    • Changed —innotata 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • link mantle
    • Linked an article. Not the most useful one, but it's the best we have. —innotata 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The male has the crown and nape grey and the lower back and rump rufous." I would put the adjective before the noun: a grey crown...
    • Done —innotata 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


  • The first three sentences contain "described".
    • Changed —innotata 17:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
"Blyth's description was described" is not ideal, -> "Blyth's description was contained in"? Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I meant published, fixed. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "and possible relation with" -> "and a possible relationship with"?
    • Done —innotata 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "during which two clutches are raised by most pairs" - perhaps put this at the end of the paragraph where you discuss that both the male and female contribute etc.
    • That explains the duration of the breeding season; most temperate birds only raise one brood per year. —innotata 17:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by this argument. Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the only way to explain the typical duration of the breeding season, given what data exist; this doesn't have that much to do with discussing behavioral patterns during the raising of young. I supposed I could add it as a sentence at the end, but the information seems more helpful there. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The nest has an entrance higher on the sides" - I don't understand this.
    • Fixed I hope —innotata 17:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Is there any information published on the colour and size of the eggs?
    • I haven't found any yet. Most contemporary sources omit this information, and the Sind sparrow wasn't collected so much as other species in the 19th century—it wasn't in the British Museum when they published their catalogue of eggs I usually use as a reference. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are some journal articles included in References and others in Works cited? Compare Whistler (1922) and Ticehurst (1922).
    • My preference is to put any very long works, in which it is useful to give the particular pages referenced, in 'Works cited', regardless of their type. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • When using the journal template the output generated by series= keyword is confusing, consider putting "series=11th series" etc Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Done —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My personal preference (which you can obviously ignore) is to include the volume number of a book with the title - as with Summers-Smith (2009), rather than using the volume= keyword which gives an ugly bold number. Aa77zz (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd rather not, where there's no title for the volume. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

A small point - in a number of places it would be good if the text could be rejigged to avoid repetition (provided this doesn't introduce ambiguity):

  • "Discovered around 1840, this species went undetected for several decades after its discovery."
  • "some birds enter drier habitats as they disperse short distances from their breeding habitat,"
  • "and caring for the young, and usually raise two clutches of three to five young each breeding season."

Support - the article meets the criteria. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn[edit]

  • "plumage features" As opposed to non-plumage feathers?
    • It's 'features', not 'feathers'? —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Blyth's description was described in" ??
    • Oops, I meant published. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "two species bred in the same areas without interbreeding" Would a more useful link not be to biological species concept?
    • Nah, there's a lot more to the biological species concept than sympatry, and sympatry is not exclusive to the biological species concept. —innotata 16:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It'd be helpful if you mentioned what "Sind" refers to.
    • Added. —innotata 16:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Any parasites or predators? Any cultural significance? Any word on how long they live? What do the eggs look like?
    • Probably not much, and it'll be hard to find. In detail: There may be information somewhere on parasites, and maybe individual listings of animals recorded eating this species (although it's hard to tell apart from the house sparrow, so maybe not). Information on eggs is hard to find, since the usual suspects didn't have any of its eggs. I expect there's no information at all on survival; nobody's done a study specifically on it, and if there even are banding records of lifespan (unlikely), they probably wouldn't tell much. As for cultural significance, supposedly it's the unofficial provincial bird of Sindh, but that's pretty tenuous, and I don't have a reference (once again it's hard to tell apart from the house sparrow, so there might not be much!).

Nice looking little article. I made some changes- please check them. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Images are mostly fine (File:PasserPyrrhonotusKeulemans.jpg is particularly pleasant). File:PasserPyrrhonotusMap.svg could do with a link to the file on which the map is based, and, ideally, a fuller citation. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Nice work, A few nitpicks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hume and Ticehurst noted a resemblance to, and a possible relation with, the Dead Sea sparrow of the Middle East and Balochistan.[17][20] William Robert Ogilvie-Grant and Henry Ogg Forbes noted a resemblance to the Abd al-Kuri sparrow, endemic to the island of Abd al-Kuri, in their 1899 description of that species.[28] This was also noted by Guy M. Kirwan in a 2008 study.[29]
    • Changed —innotata 18:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 'The Sind sparrow feeds mainly on the seeds of grasses and other plants such as Polygonum plebeium. They may...
    • Changed —innotata 18:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought it was unlikely that the ggs were undescribed, so a couple of minutes searching found a referenced description of the eggs and the original
    • Added. Thanks! —innotata 18:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN14, 28: page?
  • FN1 has an accessdate but FN36 does not - be consistent
  • Be consistent in whether books include locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Jules Massenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Cg2p0B0u8m and Tim riley talk 21:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Not the least of the 1840s generation of composers (Dvořák, Fauré, Rimsky-Korsakov, Sullivan, Tchaikovsky et al) was Massenet, who came to embody French opera of the Belle Époque. After his death in 1912 his music went out of fashion, although his most popular opera, Manon, held its place in the repertoire. In recent decades there has been a revival of interest in his music and many of his neglected operas are being staged. He left some delighful but highly unreliable memoirs; we hope the present article is more reliable. Many Wiki-colleagues contributed to the recent overhaul, and the peer review had an all-star cast. We look forward to suggestions, and, we hope, support. Tim riley talk 21:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I had words at the PR, and also supplied a couple of articles for the research. The article is well-written, comprehensive without wordiness. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. I gave my comments at the wonderfully thorough PR, and the article has only improved since. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: An excellent composer biography, to which I gave the full review treatment at PR, and was rewarded by the adoption of almost all my points and quibbles. The article is pleasant and informative, and in my view deserves a specially gilded star for including an image of the utterly delightful and swooning beautiful Renée Fleming (she's 55! I can't believe it). That really made my evening. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The support of Wehwalt, Crisco and Brian is greatly appreciated – thanks to all three. Tim riley talk 08:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. Very nicely put together and hugely interesting. One small point, in the "Later years" section, which reads "main biographical detail of note of his latter years": should that be latter years or later years? - SchroCat (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, SchroCat! We must work together on an article sometime. I wrote "latter" deliberately, but am quite willing to be told that "later" would be better. Very happy either way. If you prefer the latter (later) to the former (latter), pray amend forthwith. Excuse me, I think I need to go and lie down. Tim riley talk 14:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: I read the article at PR, since when there have been a few changes. Altogether it is excellently written, most sympathetic and informative. Just one small niggle: in the "Recordings" section, there's two consecutive sentences which start "It was...". I think it may be better to start the second of these ("It was released on compact disc in 2008,") with "It has been released on compact disc...", which would also have the advantage, I think, of immediately alerting readers that we're no longer talking of events during Massenet's life. Alfietucker (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you for the support and for the unwinking professional eye on the prose. Your suggested tweak shall be twuck as soon as I have signed this... Tim riley talk 20:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Tweacation now accomplished. Tim riley talk 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Very nice article, certainly has my support (although I am not myself a great Massenetien). Couple of v. minor points on a first read: why not links for 'Pardon de Ploermel' and Meyerbeer in M's first published work? Also, first sentence of Later Years (and elsewhere), perhaps capital c for Conservatoire, as we are talking of a particular one?--Smerus (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for that support, Smerus. I've amended as you suggest. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Media check (GermanJoe) - all OK

  • all images and sound files are either some kind of PD-old or released by their author - OK.
  • authors (if known) and sources are provided for all files - OK.
  • some files are only suitable for en-Wikipedia, but tagged as such - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that check, GJ. Always a relief to get a clean sheet. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: Excellent article, well written, well sourced. Carefully balanced in coverage. Gives a clear overview of the life and achievements of the composer.--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support gratefully acknowledged, with many thanks. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review

  • I would think refs 21, 36, 39, 41, 55 and 56 need accessdate parameters.
    • The MoS lays down that for web-only sources the retrieval date should be included when there is no publication date, and so when a publication date is given it is never my practice to include access dates as well. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Understand, cheers for clarifying. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 55 should notify readers that the source is written in French
  • Ref 57's page number is C17 (article was printed in the Observer Review supplement) Lemonade51 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Pleased you spotted that omission (and thank you for finding the page number for me). Now amended.
Thank you very much for that review, Lemonade. I hope my explanation of my logic as regards the first point is acceptable. Tim riley talk 09:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the first King of Hungary who is also a popular saint in Central Europe. His feast is observed on 20 August which is also a public holiday in Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


  • You give his dates as born 969/975 and a few lines later as in or after 975.
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "He was born as Vajk in Esztergom." I do not think Vajk should be in bold and it is not clear that Vajk was a name - I would suggest clarifying by adding that he was baptised as Stephen.
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "who was descended from the prominent family of the gyulas." This is used below as a personal name, which suggests that it should be capitalised.
It is both personal name and a title: the gyulas bore the name Gyula. I do not know what is the proper solution in this case. I think in this context their status/title is the important. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the Church in Hungary developed independently of the archbishops of the Holy Roman Empire." Church should not be capitalised.
Thanks. According to the ODE, when referring to a particular group of Christians, the world should be capitalised. I think in this case we refer to the Christians in Hungary. However, I am not sure. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "He ensured the spread of Christianity among his subjects with severe punishments for ignoring Christian customs." This does not sound right to me. "ensured the spread of Christianity" is euphemistic and the conduct required of Christians is not just following customs. I am not sure of the best wording but perhaps "He suppressed paganism by imposing severe punishments."
Thanks. He not only suppressed paganism, but also punished those who did not follow Christian customs. He forced his subjects to visit churches, to observe feast days, etc. Actually, one of the missionaries (Bruno of Querfurt) clearly states that many Hungarians were blinded. I would not change the wording. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "He survived all of his children, which caused bitter conflicts among his relatives" This is a non-sequitur - a man surviving his children does not generally cause conflicts.
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "but the reliability of this report is dubious." This sounds POV - "historians consider this report dubious"?
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen's official biography" What does official mean here? Commissioned by Stephen?
Thank you. Text added. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "His two other legends" Presumably the legends are titles of biographies, but was the official biog also a legend?
Thanks. Yes, there are three "Lifes of Saint Stephens". I added more info. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "these heavy-armed warriors" I would say heavily-armed.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Dudley Miles, thank you for your througout review. I highly appreciate it. Please find my comments above. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

  • "Grand Prince Géza died in 997.[12][26] Stephen soon convoked an assembly" Soon seems the wrong word. Perhaps "Grand Prince Géza died in 997,[12][26] and shortly afterwards Stephen convoked an assembly"
Thank you. I deleted "soon". Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "He also decided to marry Géza's widow, Sarolt" More details would be helpful. Did he marry her? If not, proposed would be a better word. If he did, was it by force?
Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to the interpolated deed of the foundation of the Pannonhalma Archabbey,[45] he also prescribed that Koppány's former subjects were to pay tithe to this monastery.[33] The same document declares that "there were no other bishoprics and monasteries in Hungary" at that time." This seems to me confusing. If it was a dubious interpolation into an unquestioned copy of early documents, this should be clarified. Tithe should be plural. Does the "same document" means the deed, and did it say that there were no other bishoprics and monasteries?
Thanks. I modified the text. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "When sending one part of Koppány's quartered corpse to Gyulafehérvár, the seat of his maternal uncle, Gyula the Younger, Stephen demonstrated his claim to reign all lands dominated by Hungarian lords." I do not understand this. Sending part of a corpse demonstrated his claim?
Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "which excludes that he ever accepted papal or imperial suzerainty" This is awkward. I suggest "and never accepted papal or imperial suzerainty"
Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "proves that his crown" I would prefer shows that his crown.
Thanks. Text modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "[Duke Boleslav the Brave's] territory included a certain burg," It is not clear at first that this is a quote, maybe because it is next to an image. As with the Laws quote above, I think it is better to have something like "According to Thietmar of Merseburg's Chronicum:" before the quote so that readers know at the start what they are reading.
Thanks. I preferred to move the picture. (The quotation template already refers to Thietmar. There is no need to duplicate the information.) Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "About a hundred years later ... " It is probably my ignorance of the geography of the area, but I found this paragraph difficult to follow.
Thanks. Further info added. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The reports by Anonymous, Simon of Kéza and other Hungarian chroniclers of the Bár-Kalán, Csák and other 13th-century noble families descending from Hungarian chieftains prove that other native families were also involved in the process." Prove seems a strong word for an apparent speculation.
Thanks. Text modified (although I think these reports actually prove that the ancestors of these families joined Stephen, because otherwise they would have lost their lands). Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Stephen abolished tribal divisions" This seems unlikely - presumably he abolished administration based on tribal divisions rather than persuading them all to be friends.
Thanks. Reference to tribes is deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I will be on a wikibreak for two days. I can only continue editing on Saturday. Sorry. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:King_saint_stephen_signature.svg: "based on" link is dead, image needs US PD tag
  • File:Chronicon_Pictum_P037_Szent_István_születése.JPG: needs a US PD tag, and is it possible to translate the summary?
  • File:Aftnn_King_Stephen,_who_we_reckon_was_responsible_for_Christianity_in_eastern_Europe.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Stephen's_forces_capture_Gyula.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Istvánkirály.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Chronicon_Pictum_P042_Óbudai_templom_alapítása.JPG needs a US PD tag
  • File:Sainte-Dextre_Basilique_Saint-Etienne.jpg would not seem to be covered by freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Henry Burrell (admiral)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since I got back into regular FA editing a year ago I seem to have alternated between military bios and unit or aircraft articles, so now it's time for another bio. For a change of pace, I offer a naval subject in place of air force. Burrell was in fact the first article I ever wrote on an admiral, back in 2009, and I took it to GA and MilHist A-Class but thought at the time that there might be scope for a bit of expansion, at least on his later life, before a shot at FA. I've recently taken care of that so here it is -- tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Minor point, I realise, but that lead photograph isn't very well-composed. Do you have access to any others? If we can't get better, well, sometimes you get what you get, but the top of his head is cut off or nearly, and his pose is very awkward. Of the other images, I found one potential problem: File:305416Burrell1954.jpg is labelled "c. 1954". That's not good enough when the copyright status depends on whether it's from before 1955 or not. Everything else checks out. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Tks for looking them over. Lead image may not be the world's greatest picture but I think it's the best portrait available; I certainly consider it superior to the only alternative I've seen... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, File:306783Burrell.jpg is too vaguely dated as well. "c. 1950s" would imply a 50/50 chance of it being out of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Both these objections, by the way, can be ignored if the images are considered state or commonwealth-owned. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Per the Australian War Memorial sources, both are considered PD by the Commonwealth government. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine then. Sorry, but one does need to ask. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. I know next to nothing about modern warfare, so I hope my comments make sense.

"Burrell served several years on exchange with the Royal Navy" - I think served for several years would read better.
  • Fair enough.
" hockey, winning colours for the last-mentioned". A matter of taste, but I would prefer repetition of hockey to the clumsy last-mentioned.
  • Also fair enough!
"He went to sea firstly aboard the light cruiser HMAS Sydney" Presumably this was in 1922 but it is not clear.
  • Deliberate -- the sources state it was his first sea posting but not the year precisely.
Out of curiosity, captain in the 20th century is obviously a much higher rank than in the 18th, when a man could be posted captain and command a frigate in his early 20s. What modern rank would be equivalent to 18C captain?
  • I'm afraid I'm not enough of a naval expert to answer that, although in general I think that as you go back in time you find that senior commands were often invested in much younger officers than today -- part of it might be technology related, part of it simply life expectancy!
"his familiarity with ratings earned him the criticism of Devonshire's captain" Worth mentioning the captain's name? Did he not have any mentors/colleagues/commanders worth mentioning? I strikes me as a bit curious that hardly any other naval officers are mentioned by name, and none before 1942.
  • The source didn't think the captain's name worth mentioning so I haven't attempted to dig it out. When I walked through the article and expanded a little to get it ready for FAC I did make a point of naming a few predecessors or successors in commands, so I think I probably got most of those the sources mentioned explicitly.
" mentioned in despatches on 19 February 1943 for his "bravery and resource" during the operation" I think it is worth giving more detail of how he earned the mention.
  • The recommendation states simply "bravery and resource during operations Madagascar", so I think we've said as much as we can.
"There she participated in the formal surrender ceremonies on 2 September aboard USS Missouri." A slightly odd wording, as if she boarded the Missouri.
  • Does "There she participated in the formal surrender ceremonies that took place on 2 September aboard USS Missouri" improve it?
"It also resulted in augmentation of the RAN's rotary-wing assets " It is not clear what "It" refers to.
  • The re-equipment drive mentioned previously -- will clarify.
"The shift in reliance for equipment from Britain to the United States" This is mentioned as if it has previously been discussed.
  • It refers to the purchase of the destroyers mentioned in the previous paragraph -- will clarify.
"We will need a Navy as long as Australia remains an island" I would date this quote.
  • Precise date not available but it was while he was CNS so will mention that.
Was it normal to retire at 58 or was there a reason?
  • This is just speculation as far as Burrell goes but in those days I don't think there was anywhere for him to go after CNS except to become Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, and that was never likely as a Navy man had been there not long before. These days a vice admiral might move into the Vice Chief of Defence position or one or two other senior roles before retirement, even if he wasn't selected for the top job.
A first rate article. These points are all minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Many tks for your comments, Dudley. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
  • This link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks Nikki -- interesting about the second one, it must come from an older version of the article. I noticed the problem myself two days ago and replaced with this link, which seems fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Peter Isotalo 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As a kind of outgrowth of my never-ending tinkering with galley (and early modern naval history), I came across the "archipelago frigates" of Fredrik Henrik af Chapman. This is one of the four hybrid types that he designed for the archipelago fleet in the late 18th century, and the most numerous. It was an interesting experiment that was along the lines of the galleass, xebec and oared "galley frigates" like the Charles Galley.

It's a narrow topic, and the article is fairly short. As far as I know, it should represent pretty much all the encyclopedic aspects of the ship type that is actually available in published sources.

Peter Isotalo 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Swedish_galley_(1749).jpg: as I understand it, freedom of panorama laws in Sweden do not cover works exhibited indoors
  • File:Fredrik_Henrik_af_Chapman-Pasch_portrait.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Chebec_genois_de_14_canons_en_1826.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Should be fixed now (along with alt descriptions that I always forget to add before nominations).[1] The photo of the galley model is PD since the model is contemporary with the original galley design (noted in the image description). I don't recall if there was an exact date in the museum, but it was made in 18th century or possibly the early 19th century. These models were often made by (or for) the shipwright to be displayed for the monarch or navy officials to impress them into securíng the desired building contracts. Or merely as a demonstration.
    • What should I do about the dead link, though? It's still the original source. Peter Isotalo 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Have you tried That can help restore the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, that. No, I tried that before, I believe. It's not archived. But in what way does it matter? Is it to establish the source of the file itself or the information about the painting? Peter Isotalo 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an order of crustaceans that live in the sea, in freshwater and on land, the best known example probably being the woodlouse. Earlier in the year the article became a GA, having a very thorough review undertaken by Sunrise which was helped by considerable input from Esoxid (who knows a lot more about isopods than I do). I hope you will find the article interesting and worthy of becoming a FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. :-) Sunrise (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Aa77zz[edit]

  • Lead: "Isopods are detritivores and browsers, carnivores (including predators and scavengers), ectoparasites, mostly of fish, some endoparasites, and filter feeders." This sentence is rather complicated and I don't think the word "some" should be there. Aa77zz (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I've simplified it. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That looks good in my opinion. Succinct in the lede and the detail in the body. Esoxidtalkcontribs 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Peter Isotalo[edit]

Looks like a very nice, appropriately concise treatment of an order to me. Some initial remarks before I go into more detail and depth:

  • The lead starts off by referring to an order, but then consistently refers to the members of the order as a group. So why not "isopods" right from the start? More of a thought than a criteria for support, though.
I'm not sure what you mean. I tend to use "groups" periodically so as to avoid excessive use of the word "isopods". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I stand corrected.
Peter Isotalo 10:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel there's some unnecessary technical language in the article. By "unnecessary" I mean terms that could be explained with a few extra words or are highly specialized. Some examples: "derived" (somewhat difficult to grasp even after I checked the link), "dorsoventrally" (no link at all and I suck at spatial terms), "thoracic" ("of the thorax" perhaps?). There's "vermiform interstitial" and "Gondwanan" which seem a bit specific to me. On the other hand, sentences like "The isopod body plan consists of..." are exemplary with basic explanations followed by specific terminology in parentheses.
Done, plus a few other technical terms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This map is very busy with colored regions, figures and whatnot. And though you get it after a while, it's quite meaningless in anything but sizeable resolutions. Is there anything simpler out there?
Isopods occur worldwide so a range map is unhelpful and I can't find a better map. I could just remove it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
No, please keep it. It's a tad confusing, but not bad enough to merit removal.
Peter Isotalo 10:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll provide more commentary within the next few days or so. Peter Isotalo 20:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with them as best I can and look forward to more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made some tweaks myself.[2] Surprisingly little to fix, I must say. Good job overall. Looks like a well-rounded, well-written article. Support.
Peter Isotalo 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your tweaks and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • Images are all licensed as CC (own work or downloaded with complete source/author info) - OK.
  • The original CC license for the 2 Diversity-images is a bit hidden, but can be found in the source PLOS articles (DOI see image information) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you GermanJoe. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't mix {{citation}} and the {{cite}} family of templates
  • Edition formatting is inconsistent
  • FN6: missing accessdate
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers
  • Compare formatting of FNs 14 and 21. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the source review. I have made the alterations you suggested. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jim[edit]

Looks comprehensive, my main concerns are with readability. While it isn't possible to avoid technical language altogether, I think you can help your reader more. Some examples

  • Isopoda is an order of peracarid crustaceans.— very off-putting as first sentence. Why not open with something like Isopoda is a group of crustaceans that includes woodlice and sea-slaters before launching into taxonomy?
See below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The name Isopoda has been derived from the Greek roots ἴσος (iso-, meaning "same") and πούς (pod-, pous, meaning "foot")— why "has been"? Isn't this the current accepted derivation?
You must have been looking at an old version of the article because that change was made before your comment! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You could help your readers by glossing technical terms either parenthetically eg oostegites (plate-like flaps) or by piping eg seabed-dwelling
Working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In places, you appear to have almost deliberately made things difficult. Examples include gnathopods instead of the linked appendage, and the obscure classical plural "penes" rather than the familiar English plural "penises" (I've never seen the former in anything I've read)
Changed the latter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not far off, just needs to be more accessible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In general, information is lost when technical terms are avoided, e.g. "gnathopod" is a special case of "appendage" which doesn't have its own article, which is why it redirects to the explanation in the more general article. On your first point, all species groupings are taxonomic groupings, so IMO it would be improper to define it without at least calling it an order. Nothing wrong with something like "Isopoda is an order of peracarid crustaceans which include [examples]" though. Sunrise (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Jim. I have removed the word "peracarid" from the first sentence as being unhelpful and have rewritten that sentence and a fair proportion of the lead. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Iftah Ya Simsim[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the first Sesame Street international co-productions (a recently-passed FA), created and developed, with help from the American show, in Kuwait and very influential throughout the Arab world. I've been working on improving individual co-productions; this is the first with the potential to grow up to be a FA. Enjoy, please! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Aftah_ya_smsm.jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder
  • File:MiddleEast.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Also fixed; thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about another small constellation..we're well on our way to tidying up all the 88 constellations in the sky...18 are now at Featured status. This one came together nicely and I can't see what else to do. Let me know and I'll fix it quick-like. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Ceranthor
  • Its name is Latin for painter, but it is in fact an abbreviation of its original name Equuleus Pictoris, - Although I can follow it, this sentence is a bit of a mess. Might be a good idea to split the whole sentence into two.
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictor also hosts RR Pictoris, a nova which brightened to magnitude 1.2 in 1925. - Why is it notable that it brightened in 1925? What was it before that?
clicking on nova gives you the answer - these are hitherto very faint or undetected star systems that have a cataclysmic event that sees them brighten considerably. magnitude 1.2 puts it in the top twenty stars in the sky. You think I should add something more? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Might wanna explain apparent magnitude, though I think the link is fine.
have added "(visual)" just to make clear to layreaders Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why is Lacaille introduced as "Abbé" in the lead but not here?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictor culminates each year at 9 p.m. on 17 March. - In a specific area? Surely more than one time zone can see it?
this only means when it's at zenith, it can be seen in lots of time zones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Notable features
  • Link Circumstellar habitable zone.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Think the lay reader would appreciate an explanation of "and is far enough away to not be tidally locked".
added link to tidal locking and a [ parenthetical bit) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it would be a good idea to keep French to English translations in parentheses. You switched in the article between styles. I think I fixed them all though.

Prose looks good. Mostly trivial comments. ceranthor 21:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Support from Ceranthor, based on the prose. ceranthor 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto

I was a bit spaced out - ha, see what I did there - with all the technical stuff, but got there in the end. I suppose this subject matter is always going to be a bit wordy!


  • Having read the lede and now into the main body, maybe saying "Pictor" instead of "the constellation" would be a useful swap? "The term Pictor was first used to describe..." Maybe?
rejigged a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the parenthetical "(he erred in naming the wrong star with the Greek letter epsilon, which is now not used)" interrupts the flow somewhat. Could we footnote this?
yeah that works...footnoted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "He labelled it Equuleus Pictorius on his 1763 chart.," -- we have a punctuation fight occurring the end of this sentence (my money is on the full stop as it always has the last word).
rejigged punct Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think introductions for both Francis Baily and Sir John Herschel are in order here as one is forced to click a link to find out who they were. When, or indeed if you do, might I suggest using the definite article, depending of course of your BritEng / AmEng preference.
introduced. Mixed it up a little - described Herschel differently so we wouldn't have so many "astronomer"s in the para.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notable features

  • "Since then a planet around 8 times the mass of Jupiter has..." -- Depending on how you feel, I feel a comma after "then" would help break up the line somewhat.
yeah, comma added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ...whereas the comma in "In 1984, Beta was the first star discovered to have a debris disk" is not entirely needed and would be more of an American way of doing things (again depending on native tongue).
yeah, comma removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Gamma Pictoris is orange giant..." →"Gamma Pictoris is an orange giant..."?
someone fixed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Up to here, more soonest! Cassiantotalk 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • "HD 42540, called 47 Pictoris by Benjamin Apthorp Gould" -- Could we have an introduction to Gould?
whoops, missed him.....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "is another orange giant, this time of spectral type K2.5III and average magnitude 5.04." -- Not sure of "this time" here. Also, "and average magnitude 5.04" is an odd conjunction to use; "with an average magnitude of 5.04" would be wholly better.
the use of "this time" was to introduce a slight contrastive to distinguish this from Gamma Pictoris, the previous orange giant, and make the prose sound less wooden. I have changed it to "slightly cooler" as this is derived from the spectral type directly. "witrh" intreoduced as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Could we somehow combine "It is a suspected variable star" with something with either a comma or a semi-colon?
I lengthened the sentence a little - is that ok? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this is better. Cassiantotalk 07:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 2014, Kapteyn's Star..." American comma.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • " may have originated in a dwarf galaxy that was merged into our galaxy," -- galaxy / galaxy repetition would be better avoided.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Calculations of the speed suggest the secondary star is not dense enough for its size still to be on the main sequence," →"Calculations of the speed suggest the secondary star is not dense enough for its size to still be on the main sequence".
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – I see no other issues; an interesting subject which has been explained well despite its technical terminology. I think this meets all the criteria once some alterations have been made. Cassiantotalk 21:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Snowmanradio's comments

I have only read the introduction so far and I do not know much about astronomy:

that is fine - having readers unfamiliar with material helps make it as accessible as possible as we can forget which words are jargony Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The link for "Southern sky" in redirected to "Southern hemisphere", but that page does not give a good definition of southern sky. If I looked to the south for it in the UK, I would not see Pictor. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I will try and find a better link. If you look in the Characteristics section, it explains that it is only wholly seen at latitudes south of 26 N. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "... its second-brightest star Beta Pictoris, 63.4 light-years distant, ...". Distant from what? The brightest star or from Earth. The number 63.4 does not appear in the body of the article (not found with a search), so this is factual information that only occurs in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
whoops, I must have forgotten to keep that in the body of text. Now readded. I have added "to Earth" to clarify distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "super-Earths"; sounds like jargon to me. I had to look at the linked page to find out what it meant. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, it is a succinct way of describing planets of mass greater than the earth but much less than the gas giants. The term is very widely used in astronomy and science now and not quite filtering into general speech I take it. I though the name and blue-link would be enough to explain especially as the name is pretty obvious. I guess I could describe then as "two planets heavier than Earth" but then that loses accuracy as Jupiter is heavier than Earth and that is not what we mean here. Question is, if we said "super-Earths (planets heavier than earth)", that is a bit repetitive and obvious I would have thought Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have seen worse jargon. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "white main sequence star Alpha Pictoris,"; contains two consecutive blue links, which should be avoided. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I rejigged the sentence to address this, as both terms should be linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "Pictor has attracted attention in recent years"; "recent years" seems a bit vague to me. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, upon removing the "in recent years", I realise it is redundant Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why not mention how far Alpha Pictor is away from the Earth in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is looks like most astronomical features are capitalized, but "southern sky" is given as lower case. Why is this? Perhaps, Southern Celestial Hemisphere would be a better target, and I note that Southern Sky is capitalized on that page. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, this is great. This article needed to be done beofre now and I must have missed it when linking things. Links corrected now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "... a nova which brightened to magnitude 1.2 in 1925." Presumably this was not a nova before 1925 or after 1925 (only a nova during the ictus), so I think that the language needs improving. Possibly change to something like; "A nova caused this star to brighten to magnitude 1.2 in 1925." However, I have just followed the link to "nova" and I think that this word is jargon. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
the star is the nova, the nova doesn't cause the star. It became a nova - reworded now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I am puzzled, because the nova article says; "A nova (plural novae or novas) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion on a white dwarf. This makes a nova sound like an event rather than an object. The article goes on to say that a star can have more than one nova events. Is a nova a rather long-lasting event where hydrogen gravitating to the star becomes a fuel for nuclear fusion? The introduction makes it sound like the whole star became a nova, but in reality I think that it would be just hydrogen (and possibly its lower molecular weight elements) that were involved in the explosive nova event. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Did the star dim after the ictus? If so, this could be helpful in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Is RR Pictoris still subject to the nova event, which started in 1925? or has the nova event ended now? Snowman (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just noticed that RR Pic is now magnitude 12.5 as listed on List of stars in Pictor. This sounds to me that the nova event on this star has ended now, but I might be wrong. Snowman (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have also just seen the Wiki article RR Pictoris, which goes in the some of the details of the nova event. I find that the language there much more logical than in the introduction. The article says; "RR Pictoris is a cataclysmic variable star system that flared up as a nova that lit up in the constellation Pictor in 1925." I think that the expression "flared up" helps to convey that the nova event was a temporary condition. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have done some more reading and expanded the daughter article a little. I am tired and need to sleep right now but will likely rejig and use "flared" in lead - will sleep on it. You are welcome to tinker with that or I will be back in several hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Have rejigged the lead now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Kapteyn's Star is a red dwarf located 12.76 light-years away"; away from what. There are lots of ways of fixing this. Would it be better to list the main stars with their distances in the first paragraph and details about the stars in a subsequent paragraph? Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have added that it is the nearest star of the constellation to Earth. Will that amendment fix this? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
yes that is fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "orange dwarf"; probably should be wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency in language between Beta Pic has "as well as an extrasolar planet" and HD 40307 "is an orange dwarf that has six planets orbiting it". It is obvious that a planet going around a star in a constellation light years away from the Sun is an extrasolar planet. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
By stating it is obvious, do you mean the adjectival bit is unnecessary or necessary? I thought the best practice would be to use full title (Exoplanet) and link on first mention and then just planet thereafter as it is obvious (and hence implied) they are exoplanets (like using full name of a person at first mention before abbreviating to surname thereafter...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It is obvious, so why not just say that some of the stars of Pictor are known to have planets. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The List of stars in Pictor say Alpha Pit is 3.24 magnitude, but the article says 3.3. I presume that to the nearest one decimal point 3.24 should be rounded down to 3.2. Why not use two decimal places? Snowman (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is at SIMBAD, which has 3.30. I have no idea how the other value got into the list and I have changed it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the dwarf galaxy Omega Centauri swallowed up by the Milky Way." How speculative is this? Snowman (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It is certain that it is a globular cluster and likely (but not certain) that it is a dwarf galaxy. Hence I will change the lead to what is certain as it is hard to be speculative. The body of the article has a bit more space so it can be touched upon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Another five stars in the constellation have been found to have extrasolar planets". This implies that there are six stars with planets. But the infobox says that there are a total of five stars with planets. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Aaah yes. that has not been updated since Kapteyn's star discovery Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It has taken me quite a long time to realize that the easel is simply drawn as two straight lines joining up the three main stars. If this is correct, can the caption of the night sky photograph included this, and perhaps this can also be briefly included in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Constellations are notoriously inaccurate in depicting what they are supposed to depict. I have no source that discusses how and what lines depict what, so I am at a loss in what I can write here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the original name Equuleus Pictoris". Its first Latin name is Equuleus Pictoris. The original name is "le Chevalet et la Palette". Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
you are correct, hence I have changed "original --> older" in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In the history section;

  • Is there any point in showing Nicolas Louis de Lacaille's own picture of the easel in the article; is this it here? I think that a later picture by Johann Bode is here. I would guess that the easel follows the triangular shape of the configuration of several stars in the constellation, as seen from Earth. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I think I will fetch one of them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Update - Snowmanradio - I am going to be busy for a while so if you want to import one or both of those images to commons that would be great. Otherwise I might have some time in several hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at it, I am uneasy about getting them off ridpath's site but will try to look for some original scans somewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Got one now - added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I did not see your request to upload an old image, because I am quite busy too and will be busy mainly working out-of-doors while the weather is dry here. In my opinion, the old image is relevant and helpful. It shows how packed together the constellations are and that Pictor is approx triangular. Also, I like the depiction of Canopus. I wonder if the caption would be better if it also explained briefly the constellations of the fish and the keel of the boat. Other than being visual, I am not sure why it helps me. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
no problem - image added now. yes can add that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand that the general guidelines on drawings is that it is recommended to include the artist in the caption. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Why is the old image upside down to both the image in infobox and the photograph? Snowman (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
If you look at his original planisphere. All the writing is facing one way more or less and the south pole is at the centre, so the writing is facing all different directions instead of facing north. Convention of the other maps is different, with north upwards. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably best to explain how a French astronomer discovered a constellation which his only seen from the Southern Hemisphere. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Good point. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In other sections:

  • "Pictor is a faint constellation, its three brightest stars forming a line near the prominent Canopus." It is not possible for one straight line to join the three main stars as seen from Earth. Two straight lines are needed. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, but the sentence does not specify the line is straight. And the three are a bit too linear to be clearly a triangle (well, a very flat one). Any three stars can be connected by two lines so that would make the comment redundant. I am open to suggestions..."bent line"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"Two straight lines angled at the middle star". What is the angle in degrees? See Line (geometry). Could exclude all mention of lines and just say that the three main stars are near to Canopus. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've done that as the easiest Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably easiest and best way. Snowman (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Provisional impression. Until recently, I was concerned that all the reviewers including myself had little knowledge of astronomy. I think that the long section on stars in the "Notable features" section is too long and its length put me off from reading it. I think that there is probably a better way to organize the the information on stars with more sub-headings. I think that some tables might be useful. Perhaps, a table on "Stars known to have planets" would be useful and perhaps some other tables or lists would help. I will leave it to others to decide if this article is FA or not. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, in terms of text only (I bring no knowledge about the subject to the table). Nicely put together and good enough to support. Two things that may need a quick tweak: History: Caption of the image has "Canopus of Carina": Carina is a disambig link; and FNs FN d finishes "Eta1, Eta2etc": needs a space before etc, I think? – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I've done both - good pickups - thanks for the support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Support The two lengthy reviews have left no crumbs of infelicity for me to pick up. Reads very well Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Unless I've missed it above, has anyone with some expertise in physics and/or astronomy reviewed this? No slight on Cas or on the very welcome reviews for prose and accessibility, but we do like the range of comments to be as broad as possible. As well as the text itself, I'm thinking in terms of a source review for reliability (as it looks to me that Schro gave them the once-over for formatting). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Good question - I don't think so. Constellation articles are less technical than star ones, which need more input on astrophysics. I have found leaving messages on astronomy wikiproject has not resulted in much feedback and will think on who I can ping Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
See what you can do but don't sweat it too much -- if no-one else elects to comment we can only go with the consensus as we have it, and I don't consider the risk particularly high because, as you say, these are not as technical as some and your track record is good... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I have asked Mikle Peel, so let's see how we go....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Peel

Thanks Cas Liber for the note on my talk page. Here's some comments from a scientific perspective that I hope will be useful:

  • History
    • "two-year stay at the Cape of Good Hope". It would be good to be more specific about where he was staying. I don't think there's an observatory at the Cape itself - perhaps he was staying in Cape Town? Or did he have a cottage somewhere in the area?
have added it as a footnote Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Characteristics:
    • It would be good to give a definition of the polygon defining the constellation, or to point to the infobox picture as an illustration of it.
note telling folks to look in infobox added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It might be worth mentioning how far south you have to go before the constellation is always in the sky.
  • Stars:
    • Alpha Pictoris - it would be better to reference the journal article directly for the spectral type, rather than just simbad (the relevant reference is given in simbad).
ref added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "In 1984 Beta was" - I wouldn't shorten the name to "Beta" - better to use the full names. It seems to be a toss-up about whether the greek letter should be spelt out or used directly - the latter might be more compact though.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd recommend linking to the journal article for the Beta Pictoris planet discovery, either instead of or in addition to the press release, and giving an uncertainty range rather than saying "approximately 8 AU". Also, I'd link to Very Large Telescope rather than the European Southern Observatory.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "In 2014 Kapteyn's Star was announced to host two super-Earths" - the grammar could be better by saying "In 2014 it was announced that Kapteyn's Star has two super-Earths", but scientifically it would be good to say by which method they were discovered. The same goes for other exosolar planets in the constellation.
done for all the planets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I have apparent magnitude linked at first mention in lead and in body of text. Not sure if this extra one is needed to Magnitude (astronomy) and if so where from Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Deep-sky objects
    • I'm fairly sure there will be more objects worth mentioning than are currently listed here, but you'll need to search for them based on coordinates as constellations aren't really used that much in modern astronomy.
I tried looking for stuff using "pictor" and some keywords in Google scholar. Will give it once more but the idea is that the constellation page is for more notable objects and not more exhaustive... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictor A, rather than saying "remote" it would be better to give its redshift (0.035058) or luminosity distance (149 Megaparsec - numbers from [3], search for Pictor A).
    • GRB 060729 might be worth mentioning. Also, there might be more useful material at [4] that can be incorporated here. (Yes, this is where I spotted the GRB, rather than searching on the coordinates...)

From a Wikipedian perspective, I'd also comment that this article might be better as more of a bulleted list / series of sections summarising the different objects. It's difficult to glance at the article and see what the key constituents of the constellation are. Also, I'd recommend either using the external links as references in the article, or removing them if they don't add value to the page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

removed external links - these are often added to constellation articles...agree they don't add anything. Regarding list vs prose - yes I've mused on this as constellation articles are by nature pretty listy. I felt there were natural enough threads in the material that I could make it into a prosey segment, but at least one constellation has been done as a list. Might be worth discussing at the astronomy wikiproject overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've also asked a colleague who knows rather more about stars than me, Iain McDonald, to have a look at the article. Here's his comments:

  • Introduction: no citations listed
generally don't need inlines in lead as all material in lead is in body (and reffed at that point) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Introduction > Kapteyn's star: it is likely to have been a member of a small galaxy that has been swallowed by the Milky Way, of which omega Centauri (note lower case omega, following the Bayer designation) is a suggested candidate. It's quite metal-rich for omega Centauri, although a small handful of stars do have this metallicity.
I suspect that is more of an issue to go in detail on the page about the star - I can only go on the leaving it as a possibility (which some sources consider it to be) and then leaving the pros and cons to the daughter page on the star I thought was the best way of summarising. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • History: "canvass" -> "canvas"
oops..missed that; extra 's' removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Notable features > Stars: I got lost in this section. Would it be better as a bulletted list?
see above. I figure the blue text serves as markers for items to read or click on Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Notable features > Stars > Delta Pictoris: it's worth saying the stars are oval shaped because they are gravitationally distorted by each other (rather than rotationally distorted like alpha Pic).
good point...added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Notable features > Stars > RR Pictoris: it's not clear what's meant by "calculations of the speed" (-> "calculations from the orbital speed"?)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Chris Gragg[edit]

Nominator(s): Seattle (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

When I first found the article, it looked like this. Now, it's far expanded from its beginnings, and I hope to culminate the progression with a formal recognition. Seattle (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review (I'll do a prose etc. review as soon as I can)
    • Only one image, File:Chris Gragg, ULM at Arkansas, 2012.jpg, which considering the length of the article is not an issue. The image is free; I am convinced that s/he was the photographer. Sadly, it is is, sadly, low quality, but barring any other free images of the individual I don't see any way around that (and I don't see anything on Flickr or Google that we can use). Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the team's coaching staff - perhaps trim "team's"? It would be contextually understood, I think
    • Agreed
  • in the draft, the Bills chose Gragg with the 222 overall selection, - this is probably because I don't follow football, but I don't quite get this sentence
    • Linked "draft".
  • Chris served as the team's water boy until he was in junior high school. - any word when he started?
    • I can't find anything on it; the source says "Football was something for Chris Gragg to do in rural Southeast Arkansas. His father was a football coach for whom Gragg would serve as a water boy until junior high", and a Google search doesn't reveal anything either. Seattle (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • For the Warren squad, Gragg played football as a wide receiver alongside future NFL players Jarius Wright and Greg Childs. - This is a big jump: junior high school to him playing on the team? When did he enrol? When did he start playing?
    • There's some sources listed at [5] which could produce a transition sentence, but I don't have a subscription. I'll ask around. Seattle (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the 148-best receiver - would the 148th best receiver be more common?
    • Yes, changed.
  • Professional career / Buffalo Bills - I know why you're doing this (in case he is traded) but it looks odd to have a single subsubsection after a subsection, without any introductory text. I'd put it in hidden text for now, or move the bit about the selection competition as a lead-in paragraph
    • Commented out.
  • In his freshman season, Gragg played in all 12 of the team's games, and the Arkansas Razorbacks finished with a 5–7 win–loss record. - I'd rework to have the name of the team (Razorbacks) before "the team's"; introduce it for the reader
    • Introduced.
  • When Arkansas faced the Georgia Bulldogs, Gragg caught a touchdown on a 57-yard pass for his first reception of the year. - when? Specific games are mentioned but no dates given in several other sentences too
    • Added date
  • a game that Arkansas lost 31–26 after defensive end Solomon Thomas intercepted a pass from Ryan Mallett in the final minute of the game. - might be worth being explicit about what teams Thomas and Mallett were playing for
    • Added "Ohio State" before "Solomon Thomas", and "quarterback" before Ryan Mallett, which should provide context to understand which team Mallet plays for. Seattle (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Prior to his junior season, a writer for Arkansas Business - reads almost as if the writer was a junior
    • Changed.
  • During Buffalo's 2014 preseason practice, Gragg was hospitalized with heat cramps. - And what's happened since? That was three weeks ago.
    • Updated.
  • I'd work "Personal life" into the college section (as a lead in to his competing in the scouting game), with the other part in his early life section.
    • Worked the degree into the college section. I prefer to keep the part on Will in the "personal life" section so that the article stays in chronological order. Seattle (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As of June 2014, Gragg has received offers from forty-five collegiate schools - Will or Chris?
    • Will.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Alright, changes look good. I'll try and trawl the internet for further sources to check comprehensiveness, though (except for his early life) this feels as if it ticks all those boxes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. I've been unable to find anything else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review

  • Ref 26 and 29 use different template (cite web), to Ref 15 (cite news)
  • Why is there no accessdate parameter filled in for sources with links (eg: Ref 10, 32, 33) Lemonade51 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Changed to cite news. I didn't include accessdates because MOS:REF#Links and ID numbers implies they're optional for web sources with dates. For references without online dates, such as Refs 33–35, I included accessdates. Thanks for the review! Seattle (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "an American football tight end who plays" -> "an American footballer who plays tight end for..." to avoid the consecutive blue links and awkward phrasing.
  • "which culminated the 2011 season." maybe USEng but do you mean that it concluded the season? Mostly I use "culminated in... " something.
    • American English drops the preposition.
  • "the 222 overall " why isn't that "222nd"?
    • Changed
  • " win–loss record" links to winning percentage, but the record isn't given as a %, seems a little odd.
    • Changed link destination.
  • "a touchdown on a 57-yard pass" USEng again? I normally make touchdowns "from" a pass...
    • Changed, it sounds better "from" than "on", and "from" makes more sense.
  • " into a tight end, which made him the third tight end" repetitive prose.
    • Changed.
  • A mixture of MOSNUM things, sometimes it's "and two touchdowns", sometimes it's "and 3 touchdowns"... not sure why this isn't consistent throughout.
    • Fixed, I think "3" was the only instance.
  • just redirects to the main NFL article, is there a better link or a section you could point to?
    • Changed to "a writer for the NFL" and "The writer compared"
  • Not really sure you need to link roster, the article is far too generalist and weak.
  • Shouldn't ref 25 have an en-dash in that scoreline?
    • Yes, added.

Comprehensive article on a short career so far. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I have concerns with the ability of the article to meet criterion 1b, which stipulates the subject must be placed in context, as well as 1e, which stipulates the article must be stable, and not change significantly day-to-day. As a young player whose career is yet to evolve, it is almost impossible to place him in context, and the article is likely to change frequently as the season progresses. I think for a veteran player, it might be possible to achieve these criteria, but for a young player like this one, I am not sure the criteria can be met. Tentative oppose. Go Phightins! 16:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Given other tried featured articles, I think your oppose overstates how much the article will actually change in the next few years. All events are included and given appropriate weight regarding what already happened in his career. Will the lead, infobox, and sections of Derek Jeter change over the course of the Major League Baseball season and into his retirement? Yes. Will our article on Reese Witherspoon change after she stars in another film? Yes. Similarly, Gragg's infobox will need updating over the course of the season, as will a paragraph in the "Professional career" section, a few changes to the lead, and a statement once Will accepts an offer. The article, as of August 16, is stable day-to-day in a way that Jeter and Witherspoon's articles are as well. Seattle (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have no idea how anyone could object as to whether the subject has been "placed in context" (1b) as most of the article deals with his position contextually within his sport, even daring to note that while notable, he's not going to break any records soon or be on the front page of many newspapers. As for objections on the grounds of stability, (1e), that's going to apply to any active player in any sport in the world. We consider "instability" in this sense as a result of a series of edit wars, or as a result of some unforeseen event. The former doesn't apply, the latter isn't applying yet (and if it does, I'm certain the nominator will cope with it and update any part of this article accordingly). An oppose based on 1b and particularly 1e should be disregarded as unactionable. If we do allow this kind of oppose to stand, then we can kiss goodbye to anyone being prepared to write featured quality articles on young athletes whose careers are up and coming. I see no merit nor any value in that opposition. The Rambling Man (talk)
  • My question (and yes it's a question, hence the "tentative" in my !vote) is whether a player whose notability stems from his playing career can have a comprehensive article written on him in such early states of the aforementioned career. Go Phightins! 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The answer is clearly yes. The real question is "will the article remain comprehensive as his career progresses?" and we'll have to rely on Seattle or WP:FAR to resolve that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair point, and therein lies a valid concern. I know at WP:BASEBALL, we have had one and a half FAs ever on current players (the half is one who had just retired when the FAC started), and the concern has been over comprehensiveness and contextualization ... Go Phightins! 12:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Any article that's notable enough for a Wikipedia article ought to be notable enough to become a featured article as long as the article meets the criteria for the item at that point. We shouldn't be precluding articles on young sportspeople because there's a potential concern that the article will not remain comprehensive and meet the criteria at some undefined point in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thirteen (Megadeth album)[edit]

Nominator(s): L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Thirteen, the 13th studio album by heavy metal band Megadeth. I believe that this article presently exceeds the criteria for GA status, and believe that it should be reviewed for FA status. L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by The Banner[edit]

I was requested to take a look at this article by Retrohead
Just a short look because I don't like that style of music...
  1. What is the relevance of the release date 1 November, except that two albums were released on that date?
  2. Why is it mentioned twice that Andy Sneap was not available as producer?
Fixed.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I leave it with that, as I have no emotional connection or knowledge of that style of music. Sorry. The Banner talk 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The sentence It was released worldwide on November 1, 2011, making it the second Megadeth album (after Youthanasia in 1994) to be released on that date; (...) and the later sentence Furthermore, despite the superstitions surrounding the number 13, Mustaine said he was actually more concerned with the album's release date of November 1 being a bad omen; referring to the release of Youthanasia (which was released on the same date in 1994), suggest that there was something special with that date. The Banner talk 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean that the mention of the other album, Youthanasia, in the lead? I ended up taking that mention out as there seemed to be too much fluff in the lead anyway. It's been reworked significantly.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Much better! The Banner talk 14:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by J Milburn and LuciferMorgan[edit]

Images are fine. Concert image is freely licensed, and, though the uploader gave us nothing else, it is not suspicious. Cover image is non-free but has an appropriate rationale and meets the NFCC. If any other files are added to the article, a new review will be needed. J Milburn (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, noted--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is quite listy I feel, saying "In an interview with X magazine" quite a lot. Surely if readers wish to know which interview certain sentiments are from, they can just check the citations? LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at that then. Is it okay to leave some here and there though?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Update removed them--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

Note: Due to my involvement in editing Megadeth–related articles, I'll submit comments without supporting or opposing the nomination. I'll focus on the references used in the article. Additional feedback is welcomed.

Source check
  • The better part of the article is sourced with Since its use was accepted in other FAs, I'll consider it reliable. There was minor inconsistency with the date formatting (month, day vs day, month) which has been corrected. Other references with multiple use include, Rolling Stone, Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles, MusicRadar, Loudwire, and Billboard, which seem good as well.
  • There are two references in the first sentence in 'Writing, recording and album artwork'. Is the statement supported by both or is one extra?
If you're talking about the first sentence in the second paragraph (cites 7 and 8) both support that--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Citations 4 & 5 actually.--Retrohead (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Cleaned that up. I checked the history and it seems that was added only about a month ago. Looks like Curly Turkey added it (in good faith) from the main Megadeth page. Probably related to FA cleanup there. In any case it's redundant.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation 11: Pages of band members on social websites such as Twitter and Facebook fall under WP:PRIMARY and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia.
Gone--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation 46 & 56: YouTube can be replaced with a more dependable reference.
Gone. Both had backup refs already anyway--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation 53: Music retailers such as iTunes are generally not considered to be reliable sources, but since it was used to confirm the release date, I think it can stay in this case.
Changed the date, because that page says Sept 24, not 28. In any case, I'd like to find another source... BWBK, Loudwire, ulgimate guitar... whatever--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation 63: Radio stations like KEGL are useful, but the link jumps to another website
Dead link gone--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation 38: The source is acceptable (, but the link leads to wrong entry. Since ref 39 supports the same information, I think it can safely be dropped.
What probably happened is that it was a good link, but when the band revamped their website for Super Collider, it got screwed up. I've seen that with a number of citations from the band's site. Anyway, its gone now, along with a small portion of text that wasnt in the other cite.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref names are optional. I suggest eliminating these if a reference is used once; otherwise, it loads the page with unnecessary bytes.
Done, except for cite 52, which I left to differentiate from a similar source next to it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation 31: leads to wrong entry.
Dead link, can't find interview elsewhere on site. Removed since there are other citations there.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation 41: I'm not familiar with this source. I assume it's safe to omit it since the same information is covered by Brave Words.
Rockline is a nationally syndicated radio show in the US. I believe its reputable and feel comfortable leaving it. Besides, its a nice change from all the blabbermouth citations--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation 42: This is a dead link. I assume this is the correct destination, but since Wikipedia's software doesn't accept archived links, we'll have to either omit it or find another reference.
It appears that the original was deleted, cause I couldn't find it after searching for the title. I couldn't find another source there saying the same thing, so for verifiability, I tweaked the text to match another blabbermouth article from the same period and put in that cite. So, in short, fixed--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Citations 1, 2, 3, are redundant per WP:INFOBOXREF, since the release date and recording place are sourced in the article's body.
Done--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Niwi3[edit]

Had some time and read through it today. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll get to addressing these in the next couple days--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead should mention what critics liked and/or disliked about the album. I would also remove the Matacritic rating as it is redundant.
  • The 'Writing, recording and album artwork' section needs to be rewritten because it looks like a history. Almost every paragraph starts with a date and follows the same pattern: "In [insert date here], the band [insert announcement here]". This makes the article uninteresting and repetitive. The prose should flow, like one person speaking to another.
  • Do not use contractions: "Mustaine commented on the quality of the songs on Thirteen by declaring he hadn't heard an album that" -> had not; "She said that the album wasn't "perfect", but noted that..." -> was not.
Both done immediately since they're quick fixes--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Two songs from Thirteen were specifically written with video game soundtracks in mind The first of these is 'Sudden Death' while the second is 'Never Dead'" - Needs a dot between "mind" and "the first of these".
Done immediately since it was a quick fix--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph in the Songs section needs a reference.

Tintin in Tibet[edit]

Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) and Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet (a Good Article) is the twentieth (out of twenty-four) volume of The Adventures of Tintin, one of the most popular European comics series of the 20th century by Belgian cartoonist Hergé. I, Prhartcom, believe I have brought this article to FA quality after a great deal of recent research, writing, copy editing, and coordination of multiple peer-reviewers. Midnightblueowl improved the article in 2011 and assisted in the most recent peer review. Other editors who assisted were J Milburn and Curly Turkey, with additional assistance by Brigade Piron. Now that it is finally being nominated here, Midnightblueowl and I look forward to your comments and critiques, and hope you enjoy reading the article! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

  • is the twentieth volume of The Adventures of Tintin, the comics series by Belgian cartoonist Hergé. - wouldn't "a comics series" be more standard? The definite pronoun "the" implies that the author only created one series, when in fact he had several (at least 3 we have articles on)
    • Fixed. Good point. A few of us worked out that sentence ages ago and applied it consistently throughout the Tintin articles, so we will have to apply this fix across them all as well. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the Himalayan mountains - Why not just "the Himalayas"? Standard, more succinct
    • Fixed in both places. Much better. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tintin in Tibet differed from other stories in the series in that it featured only a few familiar characters and was also the only Tintin adventure not to pit Tintin against an antagonist - Three Tintins in one sentence? Could we refactor this to avoid the redundancy?
    • Fixed; the middle one now says, "and was also Hergé's only adventure ...". By the way, do you like "not to pit Tintin against an antagonist" or "to not pit Tintin against an antagonist"? Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I believe some may take issue with the split infinitive in "to not pit". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Two things about the plot: you don't really need to footnote it (although if you want to that's fine) and I highly doubt "(who appeared in The Blue Lotus)" is mentioned explicitly in the text of the comic. You could nix the Blue Lotus bit altogether, as you mention it below.
    • Nixed the parenthetical phrase; I think I see what you mean (don't break the storytelling with an aside to the reader, right?). I suppose I'd like to keep the footnotes to the primary source in the plot summary unless anyone else objects. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • book publisher - I think "book" is implied from the context and thus not necessary
  • "defend their land from a large corporation that wished to drill for oil on it" - What does "on it" add to this sentence? I think most readers would get it without this being made explicit.
    • Fixed; much better. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Haddock's butler Nestor was framed for a crime committed by his old employers, the Bird brothers. He dismissed this as well, - any reason why?
    • The sources imply that Hergé sensed that it was not the right story to tell. The reason why is not important, what is important is that his instincts obviously were correct. Prhartcom (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Fanny Rodwell - since her article redirects to Herge, and we've already linked him, do we still need this link?
    • Fixed; link removed. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • books on the subject of Tibet - how's "books about Tibet"?
    • Fixed. Much more straightforward. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • his Studios - What's with the Capital S?
    • It's because of Studios Hergé, previously mentioned. The sources do this too. I changed it to "the Studios". Please let me know if that's not okay? Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Alright, "the Studios" works for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Air India: was the change made before or after publication?
    • The change was made "in the published edition", which is stated, right? Hergé's error was in the edition before that, the serialised strips. Please let me know if that's not okay? Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps its because of industry terminology, but I didn't get that the Air India logo made it into the serialized version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. It took me awhile to see the problem, but your comment finally made me realise that the entire section needed an opening sentence explaining that the story began to be serialised in Tintin magazine (as it says in the lead), then go into the Air India story. Prhartcom (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tintin in Tibet was well received by prominent literary critics and writers on the art of the comics medium. - Prominent sounds weaselly to me.
    • Fixed. Agreed, and it's a tighter sentence now too. Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the television series by French studio Ellipse and Canadian animation company Nelvana. - same as my point above (#1)
    • Fixed. Now reads, "a television series ..." Prhartcom (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The book became a video game of the same name for PC and Game Boy in 1995. "became a video game of the same name" sounds really awkward to me — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • K, last question: "While developing the story, members of the Studios confronted Hergé with concerns about elements of Tintin in Tibet. Bob de Moor feared the scene in which Haddock crashes into a stupa was disrespectful to Buddhists." - Is this during serialization? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it was during "While developing the story" and before "After the serial concluded". Prhartcom (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Good work, both of you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from TonyTheTiger[edit]

Leaning Support This article is FA quality. I have made a few suggestions below, but the article has few issues. The reader will feel the subject has been given a complete treatment by the editors. Very fine work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Support All issues addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I have 2 problems with " Hergé considered it "intensely personal" and came to see it his favourite Tintin adventure, as he created it while suffering from traumatic nightmares and a personal conflict over whether he should leave his wife of three decades for a younger woman."
    1. I believe an "as" is missing between "it" and "his".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    2. It has a bit of a runon feel to it. I don't think "as" conjoins these correctly. I would just split the sentence. I think the second part of the sentence may belong later in the paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed both of these. The first by adding the "as", the second by replacing the "as" with "which" (see my comment to your next point below). Prhartcom (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • replacing the "as" with "which" does not clean up the sentence. The problem is that "which he created it while suffering from traumatic nightmares and a personal conflict over whether he should leave his wife of three decades for a younger woman" has two problems
        1. the "it" seems superfluous.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
        2. It is attempting to explain the "intensely personal" rather than the "his favourite Tintin adventure" element, which is the grammatical referent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I wonder if the LEAD might be better without the content of this phrase.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
        • You're right that it is attempting to explain the "intensely personal" rather than the "favourite Tintin adventure"; I had never noticed that. I don't think we can lose it though, not only because it summarises a sizable portion of the article, but also because it, more than most of the sentences in the lead, hooks the reader into wanting to read the article. I believe I have fixed it. How is it now? Prhartcom (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not the best grammarian, but "an adventure which 'must be a solo voyage of redemption' from the 'whiteness of guilt'" feels like it should be "an adventure that 'must be a solo voyage of redemption' from the 'whiteness of guilt'"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Actually, you are a good grammarian, especially since you caught our incorrect use of a restrictive clause (part of a sentence that you can't get rid of because it specifically restricts some other part of the sentence). A restrictive clause always uses "that" and not "which" (and there is never a comma with the former but there is with the latter). Grammar lesson over. I looked over the article and actually found one other of these; thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Studios Hergé serialised Tintin in Tibet two pages per week, from September 1958 to November 1959, in Tintin magazine." Oddly, this sentence infers that the publication is both a weekly and a monthly. If it is a weekly, then can you be more precise with the beginning and ending dates. If it is a monthly, then why do you talk about pages per week?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:31, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed. It was a weekly, and our sources don't give the days of those months. I had quite recently added this sentence (because of a point made above) and have now removed mention of "two pages per week". Prhartcom (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "two pages per week" is important encyclopedic content. No need to remove it just because of lack of specific issue dates.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Thank-you for that, and I have even added another reference to a source supporting that. I believe I have fixed the passage now. How is it? Prhartcom (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is odd to see the word friendship 3 times in 2 sentences like this. I understand that you are making a point, but wonder if anything can be done to eliminate the repetition without detracting from the point.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • In each case, "friendship" is part of a direct quote, so we couldn't just replace it with synonyms here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I agree; it is a bit redundant, but we can't change it because of the reason Midnightblueowl gave above, and we can't lose it completely just for redundancy. I think it's fine and I hope you agree. Prhartcom (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Critical analysis

Image review[edit]

File:Plane_crash_in_Tintin_(300x169).jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Absolutely it should. Thanks for the review, Nikkimaria! Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Nikki passed this image review (diff to comment to confirm is here:) [6] Prhartcom (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "He thought it an ode to friendship, composed "under the double sign of tenacity and friendship". "It's a story of friendship,": Repetition of "friendship"
    • Yes. See above. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • We can throw this into the pile of things to test for readability and flow, if you like. Most copyeditors will bet that a lot of readers are going to pause and wonder if something's wrong. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Thompson called it "a book of overwhelming whiteness and purity," saying that the "intensely personal nature of the story made this Hergé's favourite Tintin adventure,": If the two commas aren't in the originals, move them outside of the quotations, per WP:LQ.
    • Done; good catch. In the source, the first was a full stop and the second was a comma, but I believe what you and the MOS suggest are still preferred. There was another occurrence of this problem in the article and I fixed it also (and there are numerous examples of proper usage). Thanks again for catching this. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "adding that if readers wondered whether "the effects of the enormous weight lifted from Hergé's shoulders,": If this isn't missing a verb, then "lifted" is the verb ... and it shouldn't be, because it will be read at first as an adjectival past participle. I'd drop "the effects of", and stick a "[was]" before "lifted".
    • This is a good observation. You are quite right; I was using "lifted" as the verb; it's a verb, but it isn't the predicate. Let's really geek out and look at this closely. Here is the original source: 'The effects [of weight lifted] can be seen.' This has it's own proper subject and predicate. Thinking I was clever, I stuck an introductory phrase up against it (which is fine) and also divided it into two phrases separated by a comma (which is also fine) but if I am going to do that, each phrase needs its own subject and predicate (and I mistakenly thought "lifted" was the first predicate). Therefore, I see two possible ways to fix this, one of which is your suggestion, and the other is perhaps even simpler. Here is the first: "adding that if readers wondered whether 'the effects of the enormous weight [were] lifted from Hergé's shoulders, [this] can be seen'" and here is the second: "adding that, 'the effects of the enormous weight lifted from Hergé's shoulders can be seen'". The first has two phrases each with noun/verb agreement and the second has the original one. What are your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • As long as grammar problems are fixed, I'm happy. Reviewers in general will be happier if you aim for conciseness. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Given that the book was translated into 32 languages,": The balance of opinion is against the textbook-y "given that". How about this? "The book was translated into 32 languages;".
    • I see, but then it loses the introductory phrase; we should at least say, "As the book was translated into 32 languages", keeping a comma following and not the semicolon, but I am sad to hear about the fate of "given that" as I thought it was fine. What are your thoughts; may I keep it? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "As" is fine with me. If you want to keep "given that", I suggest we test it for tone. - Dank (push to talk)
    • By the way, this sentence has the word/number "32". Twice in this article I spell out a number: "twenty-eight" and "twenty-three" (and the second one there is a quote) so I seem to be inconsistent. Do you think I should change the above to "thirty-two" or change the others to numbers? (I suppose I can't change the quote ...) Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Technically, it's not inconsistent if all numbers above a fixed number are numerals and all those at or below are written out ... but if the fixed number is anything over 10 or maybe 20, then the text will become inconsistent over time as people insert numerals that are lower than your cutoff. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "this is the moira of Hergé's own white mythology, his anaemic destiny: to become Sarrasine to Tintin's la Zambinella.": I think our target readership is going to have to work too hard to make sense of this sentence, and to make sense of the analogy (Tintin as a castrato?)
    • Oh dear. But that means cut it completely and losing the Balzac footnote too, which devastates me. Okay, how about this idea: Keep it, but add some explanation. Right before this sentence is the word "expounding"; perhaps change that one word into a phrase: "expounding on his destiny,"? Or maybe I have to just cut it, but I could leave: "this is the moira of Hergé's own white mythology, his anaemic destiny" and cut the Balzac (sniff!). What are your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • This has prompted me to add a new essay in my style guide called HEARTS AND MINDS. You're asking the readers to trust that the effort they're putting in will be rewarded, and of course readers will draw the lines in different places. Not many of our readers are going to be persuaded that it's worth their time to look up all the uncommon words in that sentence, and then study the plot of the novella to get the analogy. The best writing in the world is no good if the reader makes the choice not to follow along. I'm not saying this wouldn't be fantastic in a scholarly treatise on Tintin. Your last sentence seems fine to me, if you stick "[fate]" after "moira". - Dank (push to talk)
      • To clarify: I'm not saying you can't mention Balzac, it's above my pay grade to decide what goes in the article. I'm saying that complicated ideas should be explained, at a reasonable pace, and without too many fancy words that aren't needed for comprehension. It's fine to say, in the note or in the text, that McCarthy and Vandromme compare Hergé to Balzac, or that McCarthy analogizes Tintin to (whatever, and explain the analogy).
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Really good writing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Dank, your edits are fine and appreciated; thank-you for the complement and for these comments; I really enjoyed delving into the detail while trying to answer them! I would appreciate hearing back from you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

all things[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This article was nominated several months ago, but after only one vote of support, it died, so I'm renominating it. This article is the seventeenth episode of seventh season of the American sci-fi series The X-Files. It is notably because it was written and directed by series co-star Gillian Anderson, but was also critically mauled. It was first promoted to good article status in April of 2012, and was later promoted to A-class status in September of the same year. The article has also changed substantially since it was promoted to good article in April of 2012. In addition, it has undergone two copy-edits: one by User:TBrandley in September of 2012, and another by User:JudyCS in January of 2014. I've also copy-edited while I've gone along, and the article was also unofficially peer-reviewed by User:Sarastro1. After a long trek up (about three years!), I think it is finally ready for FA review, but, as always, I am open to comments, criticism, and suggestion!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just a quick drive-by comment, but I think you should include a note at the very beginning of the article clarifying that the title is "all things" and not "All Things". The first thing I thought I saw the title was that some mischievous IP address had gone and vandalized the article, and I almost changed it to the "correct" version. If you can find an explanation for why the title is lowercase, all the better, but certainly clarify what the correct episode title is. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the comment. I have implemented an explanatory note at the very beginning. I couldn't find a reason why the episode is lowercase (other than the words are taken from the middle of a soliloquy given by Scully in the episode, but that's OR), but I put some references that explain that it is the official way the title appears.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There's a template on Anderson, Gillian (2005) that should not be there
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 28 should be pp instead of just p
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Refs 33 and 38 should have the original url and the archive date
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • with no fourth act. can you link or explain "fourth act"?
    Linked.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why can't "Colleen Azar (Colleen Flynn)" be introduced immediately after "a contact of his"?
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You should spell out the acronym "FBI" in the lead and abbreviate in parentheses for clarity
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • meet the maximum episode length of 42 minutes. the episode is 45 minutes long, in the infobox. What's the difference; can you provide a note that explains the difference?
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the plot's significance was drowned out by needless flourishes. what does "needless flourishes" mean? Seattle (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    It now reads, "unnecessary artistic flourishes and needless pizzazz".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

John Plagis[edit]

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a young boy from an Rhodesian mining village who became the top-scoring World War II flying ace for both his country of birth and his ancestral home of Greece. Seeing action in Europe and the Mediterranean, Ioannis Agorastos "John" Plagis played an important role in the Allied defence of Malta during 1942, led No. 126 Squadron RAF during the invasion of Normandy and was shot down over Arnhem during Operation Market Garden. After returning home in 1948 he moved into the north Salisbury street that had been named after him—his address was 1 John Plagis Avenue—and became a relatively prominent businessman, serving on the board of Central African Airways. He also forayed into politics as an associate of fellow WWII RAF veteran Ian Smith, running unsuccessfully for the Rhodesian Front in the 1962 general election. The story has a sad ending, unfortunately—Plagis died in his mid-50s, reportedly by suicide, in 1974.

This article passed a GA review about a year ago and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Any and all comments are welcome. Cliftonian (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Support – only two comments, neither of earth-shaking importance:

  • Early life
    • Showing my ignorance, I imagine, but I'm confused by Plagis's adopted citizenship: you mention that in 1939 he lacked British citizenship, but that after the war he took Rhodesian citizenship.
      • The Empire and Commonwealth had one common "British" citizenship until after the war, when it was decided to have separate (albeit at this time still linked) citizenships for each Commonwealth country. Southern Rhodesian nationality was therefore separate following the British Nationality Act 1948 (Westminster legislation) and the Southern Rhodesian Citizenship and British Nationality Act 1949 (passed at Salisbury). I think any explanation of this in the article would be unfortunately long and obstructive so I think it would be best to sidestep it by simply saying he "was not a citizen"—the meaning of this is clear from context. Cliftonian (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • First tour of operations
    • "having spent the night with a girl, drinking" – it doesn't bother me, but remember that line of Tom Lehrer's: "In my youth there were words you couldn't say in front of a girl; now you can't say 'girl'."
      • Point noted, but I don't really know what would be better in this case. "female friend"? "young woman"? "young lady"? In my view this needlessly dances around the point and, at least in the last case, sounds frankly patronising. Cliftonian (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I think "young woman" might be more prudent, but I leave it entirely in your hands while I retreat to a safe distance. Tim riley talk 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Excellent article: readable, comprehensive, well proportioned, fully referenced, good images. No hesitation in supporting for FA. Tim riley talk 10:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for the support and the very kind words, Tim—I'm glad you like the article and enjoyed reviewing it. Cliftonian (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

SupportComments: Mainly trivia, but there are a few points I think that need looking at. Otherwise a neat and informative short article.

  • In lead: "about a year" sounds a little casual. Perhaps "After a spell as..."
  • Early life: lose the unnecessary parentheses around "during which he was commissioned..." etc
  • First tour:
  • "increasingly precarious at this time" – you have not specified a "time"
  • Have substituted "in March 1942"
  • "escorted by the battleship HMS Malaya" this marginal detail overloads a fairly complex sentence, and could safely be deleted.
  • "Thirteen of these Spitfire reinforcement operations..." I'm a bit confused by "of these", as the only operations thus far mentioned are those to do with getting the Spitfires to Malta.
  • OK, have removed "of these", don't think we need it
  • "girl" → "girlfriend"? (to avoid pedantic objections) – and a whole night "drinking"? Yeah, yeah...
  • Re: girlfriend, OK. Re: drinking, well, that's what the source says... Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "colonial Governor" should be either "colonial governor" or "Colonial Governor", without the mix of capitals
  • I've taken the word "colonial" out to remove this issue
  • Again, "about a year". You could safely say "a year" here, to avoid the casual feel.
  • Second tour:
  • "put in command of" → "made commander of" possibly neater?
  • "his usual personal decorations" – readers might need reminding
  • Have substituted "He added to this a full rendering of "kay" and other personal decorations."
  • "Leading No. 126 Squadron on raids into Normandy during the Allied invasion, Plagis also took part in many of the attacks on German positions in northern France and the Low Countries that followed over the next few months. The syntax is wrong; it fuses two separate activities: (1) his raids into Normandy and (2) his subsequent attacks in northern France and the Low Countries. I suggest: "After leading No. 126 Squadron on raids into Normandy during the Allied invasion, Plagis took part in many of the attacks on German positions in northern France and the Low Countries that followed over the next few months". That will do it.
  • There's the same problem with "Leading the wing despite being two ranks below wing commander, he was officially promoted to squadron leader on 28 March..." You could simply add "After..." to the front of the sentence, or for variety say: "He led the wing despite being two ranks below wing commander, before being promoted to squadron leader on 28 March..." Note that I have deleted officially - were there unofficial promotions?
  • In a nutshell: it is not uncommon in an operational situation, particularly where the unit is constantly evolving due to deaths, casualties etc for semi-official "temporary" or "acting" promotions to be made in the field, and sometimes held for years, without the official ("substantive") rank actually changing. It is also possible for an officer to serve in a role higher than that suggested than his rank without such a promotion being made (as was the case with Plagis, who filled the role of a wing commander while keeping his lower rank). Anyway the point is that I included the word "officially" to make clear this wasn't a field promotion. I think you're right that we don't really need it, though, so I've binned it. Thanks for this Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "He was furthermore..." no need for "furthermore"
  • Post-war service:
  • "wartime contributions" – "exploits" possibly stronger?
  • One of the best-known Rhodesian flyers of the war, he married in 1954 and had three sons and a daughter." Unrelated facts shouldn't be enjoined within a single sentence. I think I would ditch the words "One of the best-known Rhodesian flyers of the war", as this fact is well established.
  • "perhaps most prominently" is editorialising. Suggest replace with "including"
  • "and ran for it" → "and was its candidate"
  • "who often associated with him and Smith" – do you mean "socialised"?
  • Suicide: I'm a bit surprised that, given the statement that he had never truly readjusted to civilian life, there has een no previous mention of depression or other evidence of maladjustment. This is 26 years – half his lifetime. Thus his suicide comes as a complete surprise. Is there nothing in the sources that gives earlier clues as to his state of mind prior to his taking his life?
  • Not that I can see, and indeed this was also surprising to me, hence me placing the qualifier "according to Lauren St John, an author from Gadzema" before it. I am still looking for sources online but it seems there are very few for the latter part of his life. Getting hold of back copies of Rhodesian papers like the Rhodesia Herald would be very helpful for investigating this further. Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Another thing that surprises me is that, given he was one of Rhodesia's best-known and most decorated air aces, had a street named after him, was a friend and confidante of Ian Smith, etc., there is no public record of his date of birth or the date of his death. Surely the latter was reported in newspapers?
  • Again, see above. I am sure it would have been reported in the Herald and probably other Rhodesian papers too but unfortunately the archives I know of are not geographically feasible for me to visit (the ones I know of are in Zim, South Africa and Australia). It does not seem implausible to me however that Plagis might have had an obituary in the UK press as he was a decorated RAF war veteran. I will keep digging and try to find more information. Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Brian for the kind words and the review. I will mention here that my attempts to find more information on Plagis online have unearthed that it seems he was somehow involved in the episode in 1966 when L. Ron Hubbard attempted to set up a "haven for Scientology" in Rhodesia before being deported. Hubbard apparently "purchased an interest in the holdings and Investments of Mr. John Plagis, a local property owner, and a holding company was being formed for them". A google search for "Plagis hubbard" throws up mentions of a legal case, Plagis v. Hubbard 1975 (1) SA 469, but unfortunately I can only get the book previews for these. I think this warrants further investigation and inclusion in the article, so I'll get on that as well. Cliftonian (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be worth breiefly adding mention of the Hubbard connection, which could be cited to The Chronicle via the courtesy link. If more comes to light you could expand. As Plagis won the DFC it his highly likely that an obit appeared in The Daily Telegraph, but without a death date, that would be hard to find. You could ask Tim if he can help – he seems to have means of accessing old newspapers, though not necessarily the DT. I don't think, however, that these issues should delay the article's promotion to FA, and have upgraded accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for all your help Brian. I have requested Tim's help in this direction. Cliftonian (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Cliftonian (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Recusing myself from delegate duties to review...

  • Copyedited the expression as I tend to do, so pls let me know any concerns there.
  • Style-wise, a few things:
    • I'm pretty sure we don't start with rank in the lead unless it's one-star and above. I can't point to a guideline on that but it's one I've observed through dozens of military bios at MilHist A-Class Review and at FAC so it seems to be the convention.
      • I don't remember seeing this guideline but I have no problem taking this out. Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I've never seen the point of the post-noms line at the top of the infobox, given they're in the first line of the lead and are spelt out at the bottom of the infobox. Certainly they aren't required, although they don't seem to be forbidden either, so will leave to you.
      • Someone else seems to have taken these out. Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Likewise the flag icons in the infobox seem superfluous to me. Again, though not forbidden, many of us get by without them without any objection at ACR or FAC. Again, will leave to you.
      • I personally like the little flags in this kind of article so I'll leave them there for now, but I don't feel particularly strongly about this and if consensus says take them out I will do so. Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Content-wise, just a few things:
    • "He was officially promoted to flying officer on 1 October 1942." Looks to me based on the Gazette entry at FN25 that he was a probationary Flying Officer.
    • "He led the wing despite being two ranks below wing commander, before being promoted to squadron leader on 28 March." FN30, the only citation for this statement, simply records his promotion to squadron leader. Has some other source drawn attention to his rank relative to commanding a wing?
      • Not that I can see. In fact a quick check shows the sources referring to this posting seem to incorrect refer to him as a wing commander when he wasn't one at the time. Probably simpler if we just take this fragment out and rephrase. Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • On a related note, I see the conversation above re. UK newspaper obits. I have access to The Times and Sunday Times digital archives through the National Library of Australia and a search there revealed nothing on Plagis after his DSO in 1944. Interestingly, though, that item refers to him as Squadron Leader Plagis, before his substantive promotion in March 1945, so it may be he was acting or temp s/l while he was leading the wing, meaning that in effect he wasn't two ranks below wing commander anyway...
      • That seems likely. Regarding obituaries, the British Library claims on its website to have back copies of the Rhodesian papers, and Tim is going there in a few days, so I have asked him to have a look. Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Article structure and level of detail seem fine. Obviously be good to find out some more on his death, especially the date, but I've had at least one bio promoted to FA without that, so I wouldn't say it should hold up promotion as long as the effort's been made.
  • Image licensing looks okay, all sourced from Imperial War Museum.
  • No issues leapt out re. source formatting/reliability.

Nice work as usual, John. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for the review and the kind words Ian. I'm glad you like the article. Cheers Cliftonian (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, it's great to see you bringing your considerable article-writing talents to a WWII ace bio -- I'll scan again when/if Tim provides any further info from the library but confident enough to support in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much Ian! I'm flattered you hold me in such regard. Hope you're well and have a great rest of the week. Cliftonian (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

There's only three images, so this will be quick:

  • Thanks for this Adam. I do like that one myself, particularly as the roundel is in Luton Town colours... ;) Cliftonian (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

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

  • Thank you very much for this Dan, have a great weekend. Cliftonian (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Update regarding research into death

I am very thankful to my friend Tim, who has located The Rhodesia Herald for 1974 on microfiche at the British Library in London. He has ordered it for Wednesday (20/8), and will check through for an obituary for Plagis. Cliftonian (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I am very sorry to report that I have drawn a blank. There may have been an obit in The Rhodesia Herald in the latter half of 1974, but I'm afraid I ran out of time at the BL today after reading through all the news pages of the Herald (there is no obit section as such) from 1 Jan 1974 to the end of June. I had underestimated how much longer it takes to scan images of pages with the naked eye rather than pressing search buttons on digitised pages, and alas I ran out of time half way through the year. So sorry, Cliftonian! Tim riley talk 17:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
On the contrary, thank you for trying so hard to help! I can't imagine reading through half a year's worth of 40-year-old African newspapers could have been much fun for you. Oh well, it's a shame we couldn't find anything but I guess we'll have to draw a blank on this for now. There is no reason the death date cannot be added later if an obituary shows up. Thank you again Tim for making such an effort and investing so much of your time. It is really appreciated. Cliftonian (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

SMS Scharnhorst[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the second attempt at FAC for this article - the first was archived due to lack of reviews. As I said at the first attempt, I'd like to run this article on 8 December this year, to commemorate the centenary of the Battle of the Falkland Islands, where this ship was sunk with all hands. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Just FTR, owing to the aforementioned lack of reviews first time round, the nominator obtained leave to launch a second nom without the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of References
    • Fixed, good eye!
  • You have county/state for one location but not for others - suggest adding a few more. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I've lately been of the mind that state/country info really isn't useful in the references since it doesn't help find the reference and it usually isn't recommended by style guides, so I removed the one that was here. Thanks for checking these as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:SMS Scharnhorst by Arthur Renard.jpg - Very good picture, but the resolution is rather disappointing. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.
  • File:Scharnhorst2.jpg Copyright's fine, image... rather a bad copy. Again, you take what you get.
  • File:Scharnhorst class Brassey's.jpg Possible problem You have a American copyright tag on a work from a British publisher. At best, this needs redocumented, at worst, this needs moved to en-wiki and marked with {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}.
    • I haven't been able to find the 1913 edition of TNA in Google Books, but from the 1904 and 1911 editions it looks like Sydney W. Barnaby, who was a naval architect at Thornycroft, made the illustrations (though curiously, the German ships are omitted from the 1911 edition). Oddly enough, the 1907 edition has the German ships, including Scharnhorst, but Barnaby isn't credited (nor is anyone else). According to this he died in 1927 so we should be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll update the image description page. If this problem applies to every illustration in commons:Category:Brassey's Naval Annual ...get a bot.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work; once I've edited the Brassey's, I think everything is now cleared. Support Adam Cuerden (talk)
Oh, one other thing, though it's a minor point: File:Schantung Kiautschou.jpg is very obviously tilted. Shall I just rotate it and reupload over? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure, if you don't mind! Though the local version is here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Don't know why you should put the exact tonnage in the lede, but if you want it, it needs to be hyphenated as a compound adjective.
  • Link magazines and define "machinery spaces" a bit better for ordinary readers. And conning tower.
  • Add something specifying that Glasgow was under Cradock's command.
  • Otherwise looks pretty good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

2002 Pacific typhoon season[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about an active typhoon season that featured a lot of damaging storms. I've had it done for a while, but I decided to give it a go and try for FAC, since I believe it represents some of the WPTC's best work, and it's the best coverage on typhoons in 2002. Hope you like it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to invite User:Jason Rees to co-nom this FAC, as I might be busy over the next few weeks with music stuff. He indicated interest off-wiki that he'd be able to help out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Yep for my own personal reason that Hink is aware off i am willing to help out with this articles FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the color scheme used in the headers of the infobox do not comply with WP:CONTRAST. Namely, the link colors #0645AD (unvisited) and #0B0080 (visited) against the dark red (ff6060,ff8f20) and dark blue (5ebaff) colors used do not comply according to this calculator. Since the link is to very useful information explaining the scale used, removing it isn't an option, so some sort of color adjustment needs to be made. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As this is a project-wide issue, one that cannot be addressed solely with this article, and as you are currently in a discussion about it with the rest of the project, I believe it is inactionable at the moment, and that it should not affect the progress of the FAC. When the concern is addressed by the project as a whole, it will also be fixed in this article. If you have any comments pertaining to this article specifically, I'd be happy to address them though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not at all. I'm saying that there is a discussion going on to discuss this, since it affects the entire project, so it is inactionable on here. Once the issue is addressed, it will be fixed through the entire project, including this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Likewise, there FA promotion request could be "inactionable" if the article fails to comply with the MoS. I suggest helping to move along the adoption of a compliant color scheme. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but none of the 189 FA/FL's have had issues with this before, so I think it's a little unfair to single out this specific FAC, when it deals with every article in the entire project. After all, just two weeks ago, another season article in particular passed FAC with no problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't answer about any previous ones. It's a shame this particular MOS has been missed, but its understandable. But what I really cannot understand is why you keep repeating yourself, trying to convince people here to overlook this standard just because it was never brought up before. Now you know about it and it is an issue here and now. I don't know how others will comment, but I will not give this article a free pass on a several-years-old MoS style guideline, especially when the guideline is one designed to assist people with impairments. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not asking you to give it a free pass, or to overlook. I'm just saying that I am incapable of addressing your concerns with this one single article when the changes affect the entire Wikiproject. There is a discussion on this with you involved elsewhere, so I don't see a point continuing to harp on it on here. I just ask that you assume good faith that when a consensus is reached, that the change will be put into effect project wide, including this article. If you have anything on this article in particular (and not other articles) that you have qualms about, I'd be happy to address them, though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would have more confidence in what you're saying if, as the nominator here, you said something like "I recognize this is a problem and am working hard to address this concern". Lacking that, it feels like you're ask for a free pass on this article. Perhaps you should withdraw until this article (and the WikiProject) adheres to the MoS guideline? -- Netoholic @ 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite the contrary. As some editors believe that how we have it currently does indeed adhere to the MoS guideline, I feel no need to withdraw it, since I believe the article does pass all of the FA criteria. Your point is noted, but your edits are getting borderline disruptive. I feel there is no need for more discussion about this specific issue here, considering how lengthy the discussion is at WT:WPTC. But, once again, if you have anything specific about this article (and not the tropical cyclone project in general that you seem to have some beef with) that you have concerns about, I'd be happy to address them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly ignorant about color issues, but I know that ACCESS lists two standards, AA and AAA. Just eyeballing it, the contrast doesn't seem to be a problem, so I'm wondering if that's the issue, if the contrast meets the AA standard but not the AAA standard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you have normal vision, "eyeballing it" probably won't indicate to you the problem, but WP:CONTRAST links to tools that assist. Since this page uses a total of only about 7 distinct colors for storm strength, we should be able to get AAA, or very close to it. -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I got an answer to this question here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Added comment: the tracking images used on this page also fail to comply with WP:COLOR (""Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information"). These maps use only colored circles to differentiate the intensities. The intensity should instead be conveyed by different symbols for each, and a key should be present on the images to aid readers. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Such as the season summary map at the top of the page? - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, and the individual ones for each storm. -- Netoholic @ 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned elsewhere, this is impracticable at the resolutions the track maps are made, and introduces internationalization issues. Additionally, the track maps are not the only way the data in the track maps is presented; the prose of the article indicates when and where the storms reached important intensity thresholds. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Repeating what I said there: Like almost all our guideline pages, ACCESS has been written assuming that people will follow the instructions: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." So, guideline pages typically don't try to anticipate every exception. They expect editors to figure out not to add numbers that would be too small to see to an image, and not to remove the single-pixel hues that are there on the theory that someone might not see them. I applaud anyone who's working on ACCESS issues, but this isn't the right call to make. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • To answer Titoxd's suggestion that this change is "impracticable" or that it would produce illegible results, I've put together a mockup of one way to make the indicators more accessible without impacting the current functionality. To the side is a track map from this article, and my mock-up - can you tell the difference at first glance? At thumbnail resolutions, you can see that the difference is almost indistinguishable, and I am sure with some work on the actual track generation program, the impact would be even less. The noticeable improvement, of course, is seen when the image is expanded to higher resolutions, where the addition of numbers (which correlate to the Saffir-Simpson scale used).
    Dank above makes the case that there can be "occasional exceptions" to the guidelines, and that is true, but in this case, the large number of track maps means this is far more than "occasional" and the fact that the change can be accomplished without a negative impact means this should not be an exception. -- Netoholic @ 05:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This change actually makes the data points darker, decreasing contrast with the background, and makes the image less legible for all users. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I was talking about the season summary map at the top of the page. I'm not taking a position on the ACCESS issue per se ... I completely agree that it's a good thing to make images as widely accessible as possible, and of course, that tends to happen gradually as Wikipedia evolves, so I have no problem that you're raising the issue. There are people who are smarter about ACCESS than I am, so I generally just ask around when I don't know what to do. But for the map I was talking about, in the size it's going to appear to most readers (and readers don't click, most of the time), what you want would literally mean changes to individual pixels (on most screens) ... and that gets us to a different issue, the feasibility of what you're asking for. It may help to try to bring more people into the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add a note to the FA coordinators. It appears that User:Netoholic has a bit of a quarrel with the tropical cyclone project, resulting in requests for admin action, unilateral edits to heavily used templates, and numerous discussions questioning the user's edits, with regards to hurricane articles. I hope that is taken into consideration with any future action in this FAC, and that instead of having this discussion on four different pages (or more?), that this can continue without too much disruption and instead be focused on an article that I am very proud of, and one I believe should be featured! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Poisoning the well immediately after I changed my vote to oppose? Yes, I do hope FA coordinators all this into consideration. Is this how we treat people that bring legitimate MoS concerns up? -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, you added your formal oppose after I implored that discussion would continue not on this page, for the umpteenth time, due to the many discussions elsewhere. I have argued that perhaps it is not a legitimate MoS concern (based on the comments by User:Dank), and since it is debatable (and indeed is being debated elsewhere), that perhaps this is not the best place for the discussion, especially in light that it has not been a problem in previous FA's, and it is not something only limited to this article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Translation: "Well, yes I poisoned the well, but only because I couldn't convince you using other means." Really? -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I would like to point out to the FA coordinators that Netoholic is engaging in a textbook case of WP:FORUMSHOPping, with no less than three discussions (including this one) all dealing with the same issue. The emerging consensus is the same one since 2012: avoid the use of links in tables that use colored backgrounds. More eyeballs from more editors would be appreciated, but the best place for that discussion is not in the middle of a FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is to bring the WP:COLOR MoS failing of this article to the attention of the FA process... which I am sure wants to know any MoS problems related to a FAC. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Colors.3F.3F.3F is a general discussion area - the section was not started by me, so I don't see how you can accuse me of forumshopping. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks#Wikipedia:Manual of Style.2FAccessibility.23Color compliance is a discussion about the technical implementation of the fix - you yourself replied in all three threads with nearly the same comments in all three places. If I was really forumshopping, I'd be putting this on a Village Pump thread or Jimbo's talk page or other widely scattered places.
Now, can one of the FAC clerks please close off this section devoted to nothing less than an series of attacks on my motivations for opposing, so that relevant discussion about this FAC in particular can continue? -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Since the above discussion is pretty much a rehash of discussions I've voiced an opinion on in other locales, I'll be skipping down here to list my qualms with this article so far. I have not covered the "Storms" section yet, but I have read through the other sections thus far – TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The 2002 Pacific typhoon season was an active, - an active... needs a subject here.
  • Overall, there were 37 tropical depressions, of which 26 became named storms; of those, there were 15 typhoons - Since you're using the official tally for named storms and typhoons, I think the count for tropical depressions should be changed since I believe that includes the unofficial PAGASA tropical depression Dagul.
  • Specified that some were unofficial. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • During most of the year, sea surface temperatures were above normal near the equator for most of the year - Saying "most of the year" again is quite redundant
  • floods left about $1.8 million (P94.2 million PHP) - Substitute the peso symbol in for the 'P'
  • The last paragraph of the seasonal summary section feels incomplete. It begins in January and talks about storms up until September when the summary just ends abruptly with a little factoid on Kammuri.
  • Added mentions of Higos and Pongsona, how they were farther east than the barrage of China landfalls through September. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "mid-latitude trough" in the Caloy section could use a helpful link to an appropriate article
  • Well, it'd basically just link to trough, which is already linked elsewhere in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Within the North-western Pacific Ocean, both the JMA and PAGASA assign names to tropical cyclones that develop in the Western Pacific - Western or North-western, but not both.
  • They became Typhoon Ele and Typhoon Huko keeping their original name and "C" suffix. - You could probably indicate that the JTWC uses these suffixes here as well since there's no guidance on what the JTWC does in regards to naming in the Storm names section
  • The names Matmo, Nuri, and Noul were chosen to replaced
  • Some rows in the Storm Effects section are given inline citations, others are not.
  • Well, the refs there cite the damage or deaths. No cite was added for each of the storms, since that's just rehashed from above. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The majority of the notes (having to do with currencies being converted to US$ using Oanda) can be simplified by using just one broad note that covers for all of them.
  • I personally think it's easier having them separate, just to clarify the original currency right next to the abbreviated versions (such as "₱522 million PHP"). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

-- TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! It's good to get specific comments on the article instead of an abstract argument. I hope I addressed your concerns here properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the dates of the storms be taken from the JMA best track. There are a few that use JTWC dates or that are incorrect. Supportstorm (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no issues with this being considered a Featured Article.--12george1 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Luo Yigu[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the first wife of later Chinese communist political leader Mao Zedong. Little is known of her, and thus this is a fairly short article. It was ignored during its prior FAC (summer 2013) so it would be great if people could give it a look over and a review this time. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone. One query. The article states "The wedding ceremony culminated with the guests entering the bridal chamber, where they would make various sexual references and innuendos, led by a figure with his face painted black.[7] The bride had to show the bloodstains on the bed sheets from her wedding night to prove that her hymen had been broken during sexual intercourse, and that she had therefore been a virgin" and cites this text to Pantsov and Levine. Are we clear whether the authors are describing a traditional ceremony of the period in general, or are they saying that these specific rituals were definitely followed in the case of this particular wedding. If the former, suggest wording be tweaked to begin "The wedding ceremony would have culminated..." hamiltonstone (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Hamiltonstone. I've consulted the Pantsov and Levine biography, and unfortunately it does not make clear whether they are referring to the specific rituals that Mao and Luo went through or whether they are instead discussing the general wedding rituals of that time and place. Given that the wedding rituals are not discussed in Red Star Over China however, I think it apparent that the latter is almost certainly the case, so I have made the minor correction that you suggested. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment – Sounds like a fine piece of work considering how little info there is on her. I will try to read the article more closely later. For now just one question: why is her name given as Luo Yigu when the pinyin transliteration gives her name as Luo Yixiu? If this is more than a mistake, shouldn't this discrepancy be explained somewhere in the article? Madalibi (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting comment, Madalibi. I am far from being an expert in Chinese transliteration, although Pantsov and Levine, whose biography of Mao is the most up-to-date and thoroughly researched available in the English language, renders her name as "Luo Yigu", and thus I have followed their example. I thus presume that that is the Pinyin name, and that there is therefore a mistake in the article, which I have now corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Midnightblueowl, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The Chinese characters 一秀 are unambiguously pronounced "Yixiu", not "Yigu", so this is not a simple pinyin mistake. The French, Norwegian, and Swedish pages have "Luo Yixiu", whereas the Ripuarian page and the Bahasa Indonesian page (whose biography is copied on that of the English page) have Luo Yigu. A Google search for "Luo Yigu" leads to Wikipedia and mirror pages, whereas a search for "Luo Yixiu," leads to many pages on Mao's first wife that are not based on Wikipedia. Based on this, I'd say "Luo Yigu" is most likely a mistake. If you have access to Pantsov and Levine's book, could you check their index carefully to see what they say about Luo's name, or whether they explain why they call her Luo Yigu instead of Luo Yixiu? That way we can clarify this unusual issue! And how do the other books call her? Madalibi (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Oddly, Ross Terrill in his Mao: A Biography (1980), Clare Hollingworth in her Mao and the Men Against Him (1985), and Lee Feigon in his Mao: A Reinterpretation (2002), don't actually mention her name. Jung Chang and John Halliday in their (deeply problematic) book, Mao: The Untold Story (2005) describe her only as "Woman Luo" and do not use her personal name. However, in their book, Mao: The True Story (2012), Pantsov and Levine very explicitly refer to her as "Luo Yigu" with no mention at all made of "Luo Yixiu"; they do not clarify why they use this spelling, and their referencing on this issue links back to Edgar Snow's original Red Star Over China as well as to several Chinese-language sources. A perplexing issue, but I shall try to consult a copy of another authoritative text, Philip Short's biography of Mao, over the coming week. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've checked, and Philip Short simply refers to her as "Miss Luo". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: Thank you for looking into this issue, and sorry for being out of touch for so long! What you tell us means that we have four different names on our hands: Luo Yigu, Luo Yixiu, Woman Luo, and Miss Luo. The last two are translations of Luo shi 罗氏 ("[woman] surnamed Luo"), in which shi means family name, as Chinese women did not (and still do not) adopt their husband's surname after marriage. The fact that Short and Chang & Halliday both refer to her as "Luoshi" probably means that her personal name is not well known. Note, however, that the difference between "Yixiu" and "Yigu" is not a difference in spelling. Yixiu and Yigu are Romanizations of different characters. Yixiu is 一秀, whereas Yigu would probably be 一姑, in which gu 姑 means "girl". I must admit I have no idea how to handle this kind of issue. Could we readjust the lead and the relevant sections to say that different sources refer to her by different names (ironically, we're still missing a reliable source for Luo Yixiu)? And could we, without falling into original research, state that most biographies of Mao do not even give her last name? Madalibi (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Is this a hard and fast rule, or – as I get the impression from reading WP:LEADLENGTH – more of a guideline ? I feel that the current three paragraph system works well in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a recommendation, but one I strongly suggest following here. The article is 1068 words as of the time of writing. 250 of those words are in the lead. A full quarter of the article is in the lead... don't you think that's a bit much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Certainly, it would be possible to cut material out, although I fear that this would be to the detriment of the article itself. For instance the names of Mao's later wives could be expunged and the third lede paragraph thus amalgamated into the second. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay Crisco 1492, I have gone ahead and made the suggested change. I think it looks alright, but do let me know if you have any further comments. All the best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hoping to stop by for some more comments next week. Am out of town right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nagato-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The Nagato-class ships were the first battleships to be armed with guns greater than 15 inches (380 mm) and followed the Japanese policy about having individual ships more powerful than those of their potential enemies. The Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) knew that they could not out-build other powers and individual superiority was their only route for success. Reserved for the decisive battle that the IJN anticipated against the US Navy during the Pacific War, they did not see much action during the war. Mutsu was destroyed in an accidental magazine explosion in 1943 and her sister ship Nagato ineffectually participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. Lightly damaged during the battle she returned home for repairs that Japan could not afford to make. She was modified to serve as a floating anti-aircraft battery and survived the war. She was used by the Americans as a target ship during their post-war atomic bomb tests. She sank during the second one of these and is now a diveable wreck at Bikini Atoll.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Re-read it; now supporting on prose per standard disclaimer (though I'm not disagreeing with Wehwalt's comments). - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Nagatoarmor.svg: possible to provide a translation of the labels?
    • Not really, unless someone fluent in German who knows Inkscape volunteers to rework the labels.
  • File:Mutsu20.jpg is tagged as lacking source info, as is File:Nagato_1939.jpg
  • File:Nagato1944.png: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I think that the zealots over on Commons have deleted the latter two and I can only offer my explanation from Mutsu's FAC last year for Mutsu20: I'm not sure what to do here. Under Japanese law the image is copyright-free because of its age, regardless of its source. But I can't swear that it's PD in the US without a source. I can delete it although I strongly suspect that it's PD as well because of the URAA. I think that I'm going to need to upload some more photos of these ships to upgrade the graphic content of this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I've replaced the single questionable image and added a few new ones that should have good licenses.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Armor cross-section could be larger
    • Done.
  • File:Nagato1944.png still needs sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • How so? Alexpl created it himself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, but on what basis? Where does the information conveyed come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Well done as usual. Just a few comments:

  • "and the government ratified that policy in 1907" maybe "adopted" for ratified?
  • " re-evaluate several times" perhaps "several times re-evaluate"
  • "used formerly" "formerly used" sounds better, but I note you use the word "used" twice in that sentence. One should probably go.
  • "that had occurred a year previously" the previous year
  • "The unsatisfactory 2-pounders" you have not mentioned problems with them.
  • I wish I knew, none of my sources specify why, although I have my suspicions. I've deleted "unsatisfactory".
  • " 100 mm armor plates above the main deck and 215 mm (8.5 in) plates below it" what is the rationale for having a conversion on the second stat and not on the first?
  • Measurements are only converted on first use.
  • "and a similar arrangement" perhaps "in exchange for a similar arrangement"--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • See how my changes satisfy your comments. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

I'm not into warfare and naval vessels so will be able to give an outsider's perspective. A few points on the prose:

  • "Nagato did not fire her main armament against enemy vessels ..." - Do you mean her weapons in general or was there a single main armament, and if so, what was it?
  • "... resisted penetration by 200-kilogram (440 lb) torpedo warheads in full-sized trials." - What do you mean by "full-sized trials"?
  • "Although the United States Navy planned to arm its Colorado class with 16-inch (406 mm) guns before the Nagato class was designed, Nagato's 41-centimeter (16.1 in) guns made her the first dreadnought that was launched armed with guns larger than 15 inches (381 mm)." - Why mm in some measurements and cm in others?
  • "He estimated that his ship would displace as much as Nagato," - What does this mean?
    • Added a link.
  • "The ships had a stowage capacity of 1,600 long tons (1,600 t) of coal and 3,400 long tons (3,500 t) of fuel oil," - Why do the conversions for coal and fuel oil differ?
    • Umm, what do you mean? They're both given in long tons and converted into metric tons.
Yes, but the long tons equals the metric tons in one case but not in the other. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The US Navy did not learn their actual speed until about 1937" - maybe you should include "capabilities" or somesuch.
  • " an armor thickness of 305 mm on the face, 230–190 mm (9.1–7.5 in)" - Having been so assiduous at giving conversions, did you miss this one and others later in the paragraph?
    • See my response to Wehwalt above; the some of these had been converted earlier.
  • "increased by 38 mm (1 in) on the upper deck and 25 mm on the upper armored deck" - And this one needs a further significant figure.
    • Good catch.
More later. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I always like it when non-Ships people review my articles as y'all are almost certain to catch any undefined jargon or unclear explanations. Look forward to the rest of your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "They now operated Nakajima E4N2 biplanes until they were replaced by Nakajima E8N2 biplanes in 1938." - I don't like the "now", and the two "they"s refers to different things.
  • In the short table in the ships section, I suggest you arrange for the English and Japanese names to be on different lines as on my screen, the Japanese is split awkwardly in two.
  • "Mutsu again served as the Emperor's flagship during the annual maneuvers and fleet review in 1933." - The wording in this sentence is almost identical to the previous one. Could it be expressed differently?
  • "The sisters were refitted in 1941 in preparation for war, which included the fitting of external degaussing coils and additional armor for their barbettes." - The use of "which" in this sentence is a bit awkward.
    • I'm not sure that I agree with you, but I'm open to suggestions if you have any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "They arrived at Truk on 17 August." - The previous sentence was talking about Mutsu, so the use of "they" is inappropriate here.
  • "A coal-burning donkey boiler was installed on the pier for heating and cooking purposes" - What does the "pier" mean here?
  • "The Times has named Nagato as one of the top ten wreck diving sites in the world." - Has the radioactivity dissipated to acceptable levels then?
  • That's all. The article is very well-written and laid out. Much of the technical information was beyond me, but for the general reader there is plenty of interesting non-technical stuff and for the specialist reader there appears to be all the detail he might require. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • None of my sources explicitly mention any diminution of the radioactivity, but I've added a source that states that she was opened to divers in 1996, presumably when the US Gov't deemed it safe. I think that I've addressed all of your other concerns; see if they are satisfactory. Thanks again for reviewing this.
  • Now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Note -- Think we just need a source review now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN63: missing italics
    • Fixed.
  • FN62: link isn't working for me. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Works OK on my computer just now. Thanks for reviewing these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Support but with one question:

  • "15 of these were oil-fired while the remaining half-dozen consumed a mixture of coal and oil." Is there an article one could link to about the coal-and-oil engine? I think most readers won't have heard of it (I hadn't) and might like to know more.
  • Very nice article, good luck with it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I rephrased to clarify that the ships had some boilers that used coal with oil sprayed on to increase the energy yield. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Dylan Thomas[edit]

Nominator(s): FruitMonkey (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the poet and writer Dylan Thomas. Thomas was well known in Britain and the United States during his lifetime and he is still recognized today. Notable works include "And death shall have no dominion" and "Do not go gentle into that good night" and in the US 'A Child's Christmas in Wales'. A lot of hard work went into getting the article to GA standard and a (limited) peer review was conducted earlier this year. Although time maybe against us I would like to get this to FA standard in the hope of making the front page on 27 October, the centenary of Thomas' birth. FruitMonkey (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Dylan_Thomas_photo.jpg: what steps have you taken to determine the copyright status of this image or to search for alternatives? Also suggest using {{Non-free_use_rationale_biog}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Comments from Shudde

I don't have the time for a full review. But I'll add some comments that you'll hopefully find helpful.

  • There are a few duplicate links.
    • I have not included the duplicate links from the lead, but I have removed 5 or 6 from the main body. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • References should be provided for the notes that are unreferenced.
  • check it complies with WP:DASH -- think there are some spaced mdashes in there
  • I'm not an expert on poetry or literature (by a long way), but what is the convention regarding names? You use "Fern Hill", but then Quite Early One Morning, and later 'Under Milk Wood' -- so not sure here, do we use ", italics, or '?
  • "was born in Swansea, in on 27 October 1914," -- English
  • It's possible to work this out from the date of birth, but because of it immediately follows a discussion of Thomas' father, in "His only sister Nancy" it's not clear who his refers to.
  • "The children spoke only English though their parents were bilingual in English and Welsh, and David Thomas gave Welsh lessons at home" -- maybe "The children spoke only English though their parents also spoke Welsh, and David Thomas gave Welsh lessons from home"
  • "which could be translated as" -- "can be" still right?
  • "The red-brick semi-detached house at 5 Cwmdonkin Drive, in which Thomas was born and lived until he was 19, had been bought by his parents in the respectable area of the Uplands a few months before his birth." -- this is a tough read for me. Maybe "Thomas was born in the red-brick semi-detached house at 5 Cwmdonkin Drive, Uplands, that his parents had bought several months earlier, and he lived there until he was 19."
  • " It is considered that Thomas was indulged by his mother" -- by who?
    • Removed considered. He was indulged. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Thomas' formal education began at Mrs Hole's dame school a private school on Mirador Crescent" maybe "Thomas' formal education began at Mrs Hole's private dame school on Mirador Crescent"
  • "In his first year one of his poems was published in the school's magazine and before he left he became its editor" -- seems redundant that it happened before he left, how about "In his first year one of his poems was published in the school's magazine, of which he eventually became editor" ?
  • "only to leave under pressure 18 months later" -- any more information on this "pressure"?
  • "Thomas continued to work as a freelance journalist for several years during which time he remained at Cwmdonkin Drive where he continued to add to his notebooks" -- close repetition of "continued", maybe "Thomas instead worked as a freelance journalist for several years while remaining at Cwmdonkin Drive, and continued to add to his notebooks"
  • "close to the newspaper office in Castle Street" -- does this refer to the South Wales Daily Post?
  • " In all, he wrote half his poems while living at Cwmdonkin Drive before moving to London." -- this was mentioned earlier in the article, can probably be removed
  • "It was the time that Thomas' reputation for heavy drinking developed." -- I think maybe "It was at this time that Thomas' reputation for heavy drinking developed." - although not 100% clear what "this time" is
  • "In spring 1936" -- this is something I'm a bit sensitive about (being from the Southern Hemisphere), but there are quite a few examples throughout this article of seasons being used to describe times, when months would be much better. Saying he holidayed somewhere in the summer is fine, but saying something happened in the spring or winter is not. I always have to think in my head ("northern spring = southern autumn"). Would be good if this could be avoided. I may not list them all here, so please go and have a check through the article.
  • " Laying his head in her lap, a drunken Thomas proposed." -- I assume this was the night they met?
  • "In spring 1938" -- see above

Done for now. I'll hopefully get back to this, but like I said, I can't guarantee that I'll have the time. -- Shudde talk 11:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments
  • "In 1939 The Map of Love appeared as a collection of 16 poems and seven of the 20 short stories published by Thomas in magazines since 1934." -- this reads poorly. Also violates WP:NUMERAL. How about "Seven of the twenty short stories published by Thomas in magazines since 1934 were included alongside sixteen [unpublished?] poems in the collection The Map of Love in 1939." -- still not clear on this whole sentence. It needs work.
  • "There Thomas collaborated with Davenport on the satire The Death of the King's Canary, though due to fears of libel the work was not published until 1976." -- what kind of work was this (play, novel?), and why did they fear libel?
  • "At the outset of the Second World War, Thomas was worried about conscription and referred to his ailment as "an unreliable lung"." -- I think this needs a direct citation, and it isn't explicit here, but did he refer to his ailment as unreliable long because he feared conscription and thought this would help him avoid it?
  • "After being rebuffed he found work with Strand Films providing him with his first regular income since the Daily Post." -- not sure about this. Maybe "After being rebuffed he found work with Strand Films which provided him with his first regular income since the Daily Post."
  • "daughter, Aeronwy in London" --> "daughter, Aeronwy, in London"
  • "In September Thomas and Caitlin moved to New Quay in West Wales which inspired Thomas to pen the radio piece Quite Early One Morning, a sketch for his later work, Under Milk Wood." -- again not clear, did the move, or the new area inspire the piece?
  • "Of the poetry written at this time, of note is "Fern Hill", believed to have been started while living in New Quay, but completed at Blaen Cwm in the summer of 1945." -- again with the seasons. Also "Of the ... of note"
  • Regarding the first paragraph of Broadcasting years 1945–1949 Maybe play with the language here, Quite Early One Morning (by the way, what kind of broadcast was this?) is repeated in close proximity. Also why did the BBC change their mind and eventually broadcast it?
  • "In the second half of 1945, Thomas began reading for the BBC Radio programme, Book of Verse, broadcast weekly to the Far East[69] providing Thomas with a regular income and bringing him into contact with Louis MacNeice, a congenial drinking companion whose advice Thomas cherished." Not sure about the punctuation here. Maybe split into two sentences.
  • Can more be said about why Margaret Taylor was such a generous patron of Thomas?
  • "for his parents[78][79] who lived there from 1949 until 1953." -- there a reason those citations can't be moved to the end of the sentence?

Done for today but making progress. -- Shudde talk 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

American tours, 1950–1953
  • "John Brinnin invited Thomas to New York, where in 1950 they embarked on a lucrative three-month tour of arts centres and campuses." -- might be good at this point to say who Brinnin is (or why he would be inviting Thomas to New York)?
  • "1950 is also believed to be the year that he began work on 'Under Milk Wood', under the working title 'The Town That Was Mad'." -- maybe say what Under Milk Wood is -- it's not a poem right?
  • "Despite Cleverdon's urges, the script slipped from Thomas' priorities and in early 1951 he took a trip to Iran to work on a film for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company." -- when you say "he" here not sure whether that means Cleverdon or Thomas. Looks like this is implicitly clarified in the next sentence.
  • "That spring" -- see above
  • "Despite a range of wealthy patrons ..." -- is there a reason why, despite all the financial help he has received, Thomas is in such financial trouble?
  • 'Thomas would describe the flat as his "London house of horror"' -- maybe 'Thomas later described the flat as his "London house of horror"'
  • "The second tour was the most intensive of the four" -- has that he eventually undertook four American tours been mentioned yet?
  • " The trip also resulted in Thomas recording his first poetry to vinyl" -- does this mean " The trip also resulted in Thomas first recording his poetry to vinyl" ? If so the latter is more accurate.

-- That's it from that section. -- Shudde talk 11:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Ross Parker[edit]

Nominator(s): Shakehandsman (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to submit the article on the murder of Ross Parker for FA review. It concerns a murder carried out shortly after the September 11th attacks, in Peterborough, England and the article gets a reasonable amount of interest, even today. Although its my first submission here, I am an experienced editor, I've helped review other submissions and I'm fully aware of the standards required. The article is stable, achieved "Good Article" status over two years ago and there have been considerable improvements and expansion since then so hopefully it isn't too far off. I've put a lot of work into it and have a fairly comprehensive understanding of the case as a result, therefore i should be able to address most queries reasonably swiftly.. Shakehandsman (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims.—Whoa! It's one thing to say that anti-white violence may be downplayed in the media, but I don't think there's ever been a time when racism has been defined to exclude white victims, however a particular editorialist may choose to spin it. An issue so serious is not helped with this kind of hyperbole, and hyperbole has no place in an encyclopaedia. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 09:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"I don't think there's ever been a time when racism has been defined to exclude white victims". Well, Wikipedia's article on racism includes the "prejudice plus power" view of racism in its lede as one definition. Combining that definition with the view of some (seemingly including Easton) that even a murdered 5 foot 5, working-class child who works in a bar and has a weak leg was automatically "powerful" simply because of his skin colour, then its clear that white victims could be excluded. Easton's piece is controversial and seems somewhat flawed and I don't really wish to support him, but it is one of the more prominent examinations of the wider aspects of the case, and the idea that event was so significant that it caused a concept to be redefined in some people's minds is extremely important (even if we don't agree with all the arguments used to come to such a conclusion or their assertion that the whole of society subscribed to such a view in the first place). I think the text makes it clear that this argument is only a suggestion and not necessarily a fact, so there's no problem there, though I'm open to suggestions for further tweaks. It would be fantastic to include some analysis of Easton's argument in the body of the article, certainly others have tried to do this in the past, but we don't really have any reliable sources for doing so in the context of the Parker case and therefore I was wary about including material that was too unrelated to the subject at hand. Again, if people have ideas for critiquing of Easton's comments I'd be more than happy to hear them. Anyway, many thanks for being the first to comment on this FAC discussion.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
"One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power'" is hardly a definition excluding whites from being victims of racism. Think of the treatment of Poles, for example, under the Nazis. Nor is it the only definition: Black supremacy is hardly new, or unknown. Easton's is a particular interpretation of the events; the wording suggests that "racism excluding whites" is an accepted fact, and it's not. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It's actually Easton who cites the "prejudice plus power" definition as mostly excluding white victims in itself. For the record I completely disagree with most of his arguments but at the end of the day, it really isn't up to us to agree or disagree with particular views or dissect them. His analysis is very prominent and significant and we consider the BBC to be a reliable source. We're hardly spoilt for reliable sources for such material concerning Parker, and this makes these important arguments perhaps even more worthy of inclusion still. If his arguments are "wrong" in some way (which may well be the case), then as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned, that's largely irrelevant.--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
You're not understanding: of course you quote what Easton said, but you don't present "racism excludes white victims" as an established fact, which is what your wording does. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well the material in the legacy section had the problem you identify and I actually fixed that just prior to your comment, so thanks for prompting me to look into this. I think the other material concerning Easton is ok and fairly clear, though if there is consensus that it needs tweaking then I'll be happy for a small change to be made.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Kaldari[edit]

  • Definitely needs a proofreading from the Guild of Copyeditors. There are grammatical problems all over the place. Some examples:
    • "...such as the Anthony Walker and that of Stephen Lawrence."
    • "In 2006, a Times investigation by Brendan Montague in examined British newspaper archives for coverage of racist crimes, finding..."
    • " a local public house The Solstice..."
    • "As noted by Justice Davis, had the crime occurred post-2005, then it is likely…"
I'm not exactly the greatest wordsmith, so I've submitted a request at the Guild of Copyeditors for someone to review it. I've improved those first three examples though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Improper use of {{cquote}} template.
Done. Replaced with quote box.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Original research: "...although neither mentioned the racial dimension of the crime…"
Done.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Overlinking. There are lots of unneeded links like gangster, pray, fingerprints, etc. Also sometimes the same word is linked twice in a section.
Done - all three links removed as well as "taxi". I'm quite good at avoiding duplicate wikilinks and so could only find one instance of a term linked twice, that is also fixed now.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Britishisms: "keen footballer", "later in a takeaway". Try to use more generic/universal English, such as "avid football player", "later in a restaurant", etc.
Done for first example. As for the second, "restaurant" tends to refer to an establishment where one dines in, so the term "takeaway" is required. The article is written in British English so I don't think there's a problem here (people can click on the wikilink), I've changed it to the compromise of "takeaway restaurant".--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "some wearing balaclavas." This doesn't seem to be mentioned in the cited sources. Perhaps another source needs to be added here or the statement removed.
Done. Sourced added.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Twice in the article it mentions there were "up to 10 attackers". Is it possible to be any more specific, like "four to ten attackers"?
Four people were prosecuted (and three of those convicted), but I don't think there'a any doubt that there were more than four present at the scene and therefore it would mislead the reader to suggest otherwise. Other sources such as the BBC give a figure of "about 10" for the number of attackers so it seems to be fairly widely accepted in reliable sources. I chose "up to" over "about" as it seemed preferable at the time, though If people prefer the later then I'd be happy to change it.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Quotation doesn't match source: "to find a white male to attack simply because he was white"
Fixed - the wrong ref had been used and that one had a slightly different quote in it. Correct ref now in its place.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The part about the impact on the parents doesn't seem very encyclopedic. It seems like something that a newspaper or magazine would include for emotional impact, but feels out of place in an encyclopaedia.
I'm a little unsure about this, I'm certain all the facts within the section need retaining and while I can see your point of view, the scope of WikiProject Death includes how people cope with death and we shouldn't ignore such aspects of a case. The fact that the room was left untouched is a little different to some other aspects of the article, but at the same time it's relevant and part of a legitimate area of study. I've tweaked the text slightly with info from a further source (the term "even" was pretty inappropriate and wasn't helping matters). Any suggestions for further improving integration would be welcome.--Shakehandsman (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ahmed Ali Awan, brandishing the bloodied knife, exclaimed 'cherish the blood'". As this wasn't a public exclamation, I think we need a source here, like "According to witness X...", otherwise it sounds like we're repeating heresay as fact.
I'm unsure about this one too. Numerous reliable sources report on Awan's use of this phrase, so it seems to be widely accepted. I think it may being going too far to identify the source of every such claim 100% of the time. It's certainly warranted in the "trial" section, and perhaps the "appeal" section too, but it seems less useful elsewhere, particularly where we need a more concise presentation of the key facts. I supposed we can say "is alleged to have said" or something like that, but I'd really like to keep it as short and simply as possible seeing as it's in the "murder" section and so not ideal to introduce further persons at that point.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims." This sentence is awkwardly worded. Can you rephrase it better (preferably not in the passive voice)?
  • Sourcing: The article seems to rely almost entirely on contemporary newspaper articles (mostly from the Peterborough Evening Telegraph). Are there no books or scholarly articles that discuss this case?
As stated in the article, the media failed to covered the case sufficiently and I expect that some of the more interesting coverage are only in existence thanks to those who complained about the BBC and media's previous failures. There's no reason to assume academia and publishers would be any better than the media, and while I'd welcome the use of such sources they don't appear to exist at present. I have spent a considerable amount of time searching for material about the case, and pretty much every available reliable resource that i can find has been used to produce the article, and if anything, academics and publishers have been even worse than the media in failing to cover this case. Anyway, there's certainly a major opportunity here for any author, researcher or documentary maker seeking an interesting topic to work on.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's all for now. Kaldari (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nigel Pap[edit]

  • Kaldari points out that the number of attackers appears to be unknown. The lede currently says "a gang of up to ten Muslim youths of Pakistani background". If the number of attackers is unknown, what is the evidence that all of the attackers were Muslim, youths, and of Pakistani background?
The number of attackers is not "unknown", 4 members of the gang were placed on trial, with most admitting to being as the scene,. We don't know the exact number of attackers but the text of the article makes it clear that the sourced figure of "10" isn't exact. As for your other points, all those known to be at the scene fit the descriptions in question. Various sources note the various demographics of the gang and others arrested. At the end of the day, we just go with what the reliable sources say, so unless you have material suggesting something contrary to the reliable sources then there isn't much to discuss here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, if you "don't know the exact number of attackers" then the number of attackers is unknown. What source states that this group of "up to ten" attackers were Muslim, youths, and of Pakistani background? Not the four men who were charged and tried, but the group of "up to ten". If this isn't in the source, it has no place in the article. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have anything to add to the previous reply. The text is clear and fully sourced. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If the attackers were Muslim, why is it necessary to mention this in the lede? Why is Parker's religion not mentioned in the article?
There isn't a single source anywhere that I know of that mention's Parker's religion and I've certainly tried to find it. Again, should you have such information then please provide it and we will place his religion in the empty info box field where it belongs, (a field I added myself long-ago). However, note that there isn't any religious symbolism on his memorial headstone, so at the very least this may indicate that the religion of the victim and his family probably isn't too significant. The connection between September 11th and religion is fairly obvious and the article also notes that suspects chanted words such as "Taliban" and "Osama" and "Bin Laden". Sources discussing the case also mention the local "Muslim community", and evidence used against one killer mentions recordings of him stating he would pray to Allah. The purpose of the lede is to summerise the key aspects of the article reasonably concisely and text in question does so very well and is sourced to multiple reliable sources.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
We do not know that all of the attackers were Muslim (see above). Even if all of those convicted were Muslim (which seems likely although we would need better sourcing than comments about Allah), there is no reason to have this information in the lede. It may be appropriate in the body, in the context of 9/11. We would not want readers to assume that Wikipedia is espousing or endorsing an anti-Muslim agenda, which is how this may be interpreted by some. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I think I'll ignore the less helpful portion of that reply and focus on the issues instead. Firstly, we already have consensus for keeping the term Muslim in the lede and its relevance is more than clear to any neutral observer for the reasons I've outlined already. They may be something interest that comes of this discussion though as I decided to examine some of the other descriptors used for the gang with scepticism, and while its clear that the term "muslim" is encyclopaedic and relevant and without contradiction the same cannot be said for the term "youths". If we try to look at this impartially and see the tests we apply to the term "Muslim", we find that "youths" is by far more controversial term as it actually fails such tests on multiples levels and therefore may need adjustment. Usual definitions of the term "youths", have an age range of 14-21, yet every single person tried, not to mention convicted falls outside of this range, with one perpetrator aged 24 and even older members known to be at the scene. Other factors may also apply allowing us to ignore the strict 14-21 age range, but any alternative definitions class "youths" as "individuals between childhood and adulthood" and see factors such as independence as important. Again, many at the scene/convicted fail to meet this definition, with more than one of those convicted being married, all of them having finished education and entered employment, and some having offspring and living independently in their own houses. So, while your'e off the mark about the term muslim in the lede, there is a possible issue with the term immediately following it. Anyway, many thanks for prompting me to take a more sceptical look at that part of the lede, it looks like we've finally identified a possible improvement, and a significant one at that.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It appears that the statement questioned by Kaldari ("to find a white male to attack simply because he was white") is currently sourced to a court document. Is this a proper use of primary sources?
There's absolutely nothing wrong with limited use of primary sources. We've directly quoted the text in the source, use them for clear and unambiguous facts rather than make any interpretation and such use of primary sources is entirely permissible. In total I count about 6 out of 71 sources used in theh article as being primary, most of which are used for only small amounts of information. This is all well within Wikipedia guidelines.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The connection with 9/11 has not been adequately explained. Although the article says "Racial tensions in the area were high", it does not explain what this means. Immediately following 9/11, there were numerous attacks on people believed to be Muslim. This racially-motivated attack occurred in that context. Why is this not mentioned in the article?
I'm not aware of any documented racially motivated attacks on Muslims in the area in question, never mind "numerous" ones and the article does document some of the disturbances and that came about as a result of the case. If you have a source mentioning attacks prior to the murder which does so in the context of the Parker case, than that would be a useful addition, but, just as with all your other comments, I'm not aware of any such material--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
[ This source used in the article says "The events in America of 11 September 2001 had given rise to hostility on the part of some of the younger white residents of the city against the Asian community. The defendants would have been conscious of this although there was no evidence that any of them or their families had personally suffered any harassment." Will you add it in, or shall I? Nigel Pap (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious? One minute you are expressing concern at the use of primary sources (possibly a quite legitimate concern had the material been less than straightforward facts). Now you're instructing me to use these exact same sources much more ambiguous material and if I don't do so then you're gong to add it yourself!. He's not necessarily pressing an impartial assessment of all the events. I can't help noticing how your claim of a context of "numerous attacks" has completely transformed in mere alleged "harassment" by some youngsters. There doesn't seem to be any actual reliable secondary sources that I can find which report the information and give any detail or evidence of what may have occurred. There's no indication of any convictions or trials either and "harassment" is a hugely ambiguous anyhow. Take all together, it would appear that this harassment possibly wasn't that significant (or at least we can't really demonstrate that it was), and all the documented racial attacks related to Parker's murder all feature white victims. As it stands, this is fairly trivial material and certainly far too vague, the source is far from ideal and the context perhaps not all that neutral either. It's an appeal document and there the judge is looking for mitigating factors in the case instead of giving a completely neutral and complete picture of event. Seeing as we have third party reliable sources stating "racial tensions" then any vague suggestions of alleged harassment would be included within this phrase. If there is actual more concrete detail of known attacks and more reporting then we can expand upon this. In the mean time I regard this discussion as closed. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The lede currently says "It is also suggested the case demonstrates how society has been forced to redefine racism so as to no longer exclude white victims". The reference for this statement notes that since the mid-nineties, all victims are asked if they were the victim of a racially-motivated crime (not just visible minorities). The same source says "The far right has tried to exploit what it claims is the untold story of racial attacks on white people. ... Often, however, the crimes have nothing to do with race and in a number of cases, for instance Ross Parker, relatives of the victims have objected to their names being used." The statement about redefining racism is contradicted by the source and should be removed from the article.
I don't really follow much of that question I'm afraid, and some of the points seem unrelated to each other, though I think I sort of understand the first half so I'll try to address that. When it comes to defining racism it can be defined on various levels and by various different persons. The way the "law" or a government body defines something isn't necessarily the same as how "society" or perhaps politicians do so, so it could be that Easton is arguing that the case forced a change in attitudes, and for society to catch up with the Crime Survey who were perhaps ahead of the game? Anyway, while this is an interesting discussion, this isn't really the place to critique and dissect the intricacies of Easton's views and writings too much, and we're not endorsing his views by documenting what he wrote.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Easton is not an expert in race relations, nor does he speak for "society". This seems like cherry-picking one comment by one commentator, not reflecting a view generally held. I believe the point that you are trying to make is that racist attacks where the victim is white are far less frequent than racist attacks where the victim is non-white. Using this case as an example of that is not, in my opinion, a "legacy". Nigel Pap (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The suggestion that there's cherry picking going on in this article, particularly in terms of analysis of the case is beyond belief and completely laughable. One of the clearest and more interesting aspects of the case is the way it was largely ignored by much of the media, and as I explained to Kaldari, the number of available sources is limited as a result. I've searched extensively for material about the case, and there simply isn't any scope for "cherry-picking" due to media blackout, were we not making full use of all available reliable sources then there really wouldn't be much of an article to speak of. Your claim is the complete and total opposite of reality, and the article includes views of all the most notable individuals who have commented on the case in any significant fashion, and there'a diverse set of voices featured from across the political spectrum. Easton is an very high profile journalist, and the BBC is considered to be a reliable source and already have consensus that Easton's analysis is important (albeit with some minor tweaking of the wording/grammar possibly required). As for you last sentence, it almost leaves me lost for words as it 's the completely opposite of the actual facts for UK. I can't image where you'd get the idea that I was trying to push this false version of events as it's never something I'd do and breaches everything Wikipedia is about. And for the last time, it's not for us to dissect or agree/disagree with Easton's comments, and as with many of these points you just don't seem to be understanding the issues or policy and ultimately it's seeming more and more like a huge waste of everyone's time. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The article should not link to a Facebook memorial page in the info box.
Wikipedia actually has a template specifically for linking to Facebook pages, so there doesn't' seem to be an issue here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
A Facebook link would be completely appropriate if this was an article about a pop group, but it is about an event. The Facebook group is not in any sense the official page of the murder of Ross Parker. It should be removed. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the page again, it's hard to tell exactly how official it is. It does appear to have the blessing of Parker's family and is used for official purposes such a coordinating memorial events and documenting them. On the other hand, it doesn't actually seem to be run by a member of the Parker family, so may not technically be formal enough. Perhaps further research is needed here in order to make a decision either way? Perhaps editors who are more experienced with these matters could take a look and help with the uncertainly here?--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why are there infoboxes for each of the convicted murderers? Outside of being the perpetrators of this murder, they are not notable. Their birth dates, place of residence, etc are not useful information for understanding the incident. Anything that is relvant should be included in the body of the article. In addition to this, the address of Shaied Nazir
This is standard practice for a quality article about such a crime, particularly when we consider that the perpetrators received life sentences. Note that the suspect who was not convicted does not have an info box. Their ages are relevant otherwise this wouldn't be included in the lede, their victim was still technically a child whereas the oldest perpetrator was some 7 years his senior. Furthermore, certain crimes England and Wales has different sentencing for under 18's, 18-21 years olds and over 21's, had the youngest perpetrator been a few years younger than he may have received a more lenient sentence. It's clear that the addresses are significant as discussed elsewhere, particularly in the cases of Nazir and Awan. Looking at the case form a wider perspective, sources talk about tensions between those from the Millfield area and those from elsewhere, so there are multiple reasons why the information is of note.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Any information that is relevant (and discussed in the article, not the sources) can be included in the body of the article. I see absolutely no justification for dates of birth or street addresses to be used, either in the body or the infoboxes, if they remain. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I just don't' how to reply to this really, t's obvious the dates of birth are important, in fact just reading about them has helped us to question some of the text in the lede above! About the only time one doesn't see an info box without a date of birth is when such information is unknown. Wikipedia is not censored. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dates of birth for the convicted murderers are sourced to court records. Is this a correct use of primary documents?
Yes.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIVACY says "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.". I'm going to remove these dates from the article. Given that these men are notable only in the context of this event, there should probably be a discussion before adding them back if reliable secondary sources are found. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The address Shaied Nazir is stated twice in the article. It is not clear why it is necessary to give a street address at all instead of just saying "Nazir's house".
"House" implies the actual structure that people reside in, whereas the key location is the garage at the rear of the property, so your suggested change would reduce accuracy and therefore make it worse, not better. The close proximity of the location to the murder scene is of note especially given that the gang fled there immediately following the attack.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps you could say "house" when you mean house and "garage" when you mean garage. You can easily discuss proximity to the crime scene without specifying a street address. Street addresses will only be helpful to those intimately familiar with the area or looking at a detailed map. Please remove the street addresses. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
No, this is an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is non censored and it's quite clearly the most important location of any other than the murder scene. If we look at the article about Fred West, his residence is mentioned no less than 12 times in the article (and coincidently, it also contains the name "Cromwell"). Now we're not suggesting the gang HQ is as notable as the main residence of the West's, but if such an article can defence the street address 12 times then it's pretty obvious other articles can mention notable locations too. A further street mentioned in the article is actually very well known and, contrary to your suggestion, would actually be familiar to people well beyond the local area, I can only guess you you haven't much studied or visited the East of England region? I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I am removing the street addresses from the article. WP:BPLPRIVACY applies here as well. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There is a map included in the article. It shows the location of the attack and Nazir's house, but it also includes a local mosque and the home of another of the attackers. There seems to be no reason to show the latter two locations.

Nigel Pap (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mosque is large, both in terms of capacity and in its height and the only significant landmark within the entirety of the map area. Landmarks are well worth including in such maps in aid the understanding of the reader. Landmarks are displayed by default for maps and, unlike the other more important locations, it has not been modified or highlighted in any way to make it stand out any more than other landmark or any part of the map. In the case of Awan, he was the ringleader of the gang and his residence is the second most significant after the Gang HQ. The rear of his property is very close to the murder scene and actually overlooks it, it has been alleged that he even looked out from his garden to view the police activity at the murder scene just hours after he killed Parker. Therefore, as with the gang HQ its useful for the reader to understand just how close together these various locations actually are. Looking at Awan's defence, he claimed to be at home at the time he was committing the murder, and it's useful for the readers to understand visually just how quickly he could have arrived home after committing the crime. I must also correct the impression you're giving that the map simply shows the houses of two of the perpetrators, it actually shows the entire property boundaries too, and in the case of Nazir it highlights the actual gang HQ.--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the mosque involved in the murder? If not, leave it out. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Well Mayor's Walk, Link Road and Dyson Close are in no way "involved" either, nor is the railway line nor, nor many of the public footpaths and other streets shown. However, I will not be airbrushing any or these map features out of existence any more so than I will a Mosque. A church would be shown too were there one in the area, as would any building of significance. The murder of Lee Rigby article includes a school, and library and we shouldn't pretend that those structures don't exist either. Please stop trying to remove the biggest landmark by far from the map. Wikipedia is not censored and next we'll probably have a fuel company demanding the removal of their petrol station too. I regard this discussion as closed as the conversation isn't going anywhere. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Shakehandsman, I assumed that you took an image from OpenStreetMap and added the homes of the convicted killers in the same way that you added the "murder scene", but I see that they are actually on the OpenStreetMap map. It appears that someone using the name "shakehandsman" added not only those sites, but also the mosque. So when you say "it has not been modified or highlighted in any way to make it stand out", you neglect to mention that it would not appear at all if "shakehandsman" had not deliberately added it to the map shortly before you made the image used in the article. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did indeed edit open street map, that is quite clearly where the map came from. I explicitly gave OSM as a source for my work, I haven't hidden anything and I have been completely open about my changes on there. I registered at OSM in order to create this content and obviously I would have chosen a fake username had I wanted people not to view all my edits. Anyone reading my talk page policies can see just how much I value openness and it's something I've gotten a lot of respect for on Wikipedia. The point is that the Mosque has exactly the same formatting, font and standard symbol of any comparable building or landmark, such as say St Mark's church which is in the same area (and actually smaller than the Mosque). I've used bold text for key features on the article map, not to mention various colours and much larger text too, even capitals for the murder scene itself. The Mosque on the other hand is unaltered and untouched from standard OSM settings in every single way possible, I dare say that I haven't "disclosed" changes I made to the petrol station either. At the end of the day, and as seems to be generally the case with your edits, you're looking at the issue from completely the wrong perspective. You should be focusing on content not contributors and on policy and assuming good faith. OSM is far from a finished project and appropriate additions should be applauded not criticised. What matters is that the map is accurate, of a high standard, with no missing information and aids understanding. We're not going to airbrush major structures out of existence - Wikipedia is not censored.--Shakehandsman (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
My point was that the mosque does not incidentally appear as landmark on the map. It appears only because you put it there. You added it with the same intention that you added the other sites, so that it would appear on the map (and the image you created from it). I am not asking anyone to censor anything. There is simply no reason to include the mosque on the map. The National Front have apparently used this killing as a propaganda vehicle. I don't think you would want anyone to misinterpret your efforts as an anti-Muslim agenda would you Shakehandsman? Nigel Pap (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FAC Coordinator's comment - This discussion is drifting away from whether or not the article meets the FA criteria. Google Earth and Maps clearly show the mosque as a major landmark, and that the map in the article is accurate enough for our purposes. That it is a mosque and not a church or a Tesco Superstore is not relevant. We cannot be held responsible for how the information in Wikipedia is used. What we must do is to ensure that it is accurate, verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. Please keep this discussion to the Featured Article Criteria; anything else does not belong here. Graham Colm (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Graham, I have no experience with these discussions. In an article where a group of men who are questionably identified in the lede as Muslims have sought out and murdered a "white male", unnecessarily showing the largest local mosque becomes a question of neutrality. The map can easily show the relevant information without including the mosque simply with a different cropping. However I will continue this discussion somewhere else. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

  • My reaction to the lead was pretty much the same as Curly's. Both the reality and the appearance should be that this is an encyclopedia article that looks at the problem from a critical distance and doesn't take sides in questions concerning racism. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Well as I said I'm happy to tweak the phrasing if there's a consensus to do so and that appears to be the case now, I don't think it takes sides, but as the author I might not be the best judge of that, and if it's possible to interpret it as doing so then I need to make the content clearer. Kaldari has identified possible grammatical issues with the sentence too, so it does appear to need attention for other reasons anyway. Thanks for the feedback.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Health issues in American football[edit]

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As the title suggests, this article is an overview of the health issues that come with playing American football. This article was a collaboration between me and ChrisPond, and just recently passed through a good article review by Wizardman with virtually no issues found. This is a broad overview of the topic - in particular, the article covers injuries (both common and uncommon) that come with playing the sport, the effects these injuries have on athletes post-career, and the measures taken to try and reduce injuries throughout the history of the sport. Standard media sources like newspapers and magazines are used, but many of the sources here are published works that come from reputed scientific/medical journals. In addition to images, there are also several informative tables that are used to demonstrate the statistics of injury in the sport, both internally and in comparison to other sports. In all, I'm confident this meets the featured article criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 16:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:2006_Pro_Bowl_tackle.jpg: source links are dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • There are a few links to check out.
    • All link issues have now been corrected. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The football helmet, although a scapegoat for concussions, ... What does this mean?
    • It means that although helmets are often blamed for concussions. Toa Nidhiki05 15:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • One area I found to be underrepresented was heat strokes / heat exhaustion in football, it's been covered in the press beyond a passing mention. According to The New York Times: "In a period of less than 20 years, 40 high school football players have died from heat stroke, according to the National Center for Catastrophic Sport Injury Research at the University of North Carolina. The numbers have increased in the past decade, the center found." [7]. It's a 1(b) and 1(c) question for me. These links may be of use too: [8] [9]. Seattle (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about two science fiction magazines that have perhaps the most confusing bibliographic history of any magazines I've ever come across. They each bore the name of the other magazine at different points in their lives. The editor, Robert W. Lowndes, at one point suggested that sorting out the bibliographic details was no more confusing than understanding alternate time tracks. Normally I would create a separate article for each of these titles, but in this case I think it makes no sense to try to separate them. Lowndes managed to do wonders with the shoestring budget he was given by the publisher; the magazines never led the field, but were well-liked by their readers. They finally ceased publication in 1960, victims of a magazine distributor who abruptly abandoned the publisher's entire magazine chain. One MoS note: I think the title of the article should, strictly speaking, be "Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories", but I don't think it's possible to create partially italic article titles of that format. If someone knows how to do it, please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

re title: you can use the DISPLAYTITLE template to modify italics for specific words which I have added. Feel free to revert if that's not what you're looking for. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was hoping could be done. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the multi-page refs only have "p.", they should all be "pp."
  • Missing bibliographic info for Knight 1967, Blish 1967
  • No citations to Atheling 1967, Knight 1974. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
All fixed; thanks for the sharp eyes, as usual. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. No comments, and little to do. Excellent article on a subject that can be hard to follow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Secret of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

When you think of the best 16-bit RPGs ever made, 1993's Secret of Mana is assuredly on the list, up there with Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI, and EarthBound. Heck, according to GameRankings, it's one of the best SNES games ever made in any genre. And now, it's available to you for your reviewing pleasure! The article has been fairly solid for a long time—it's a well-known game, after all—but in January I pushed through, rewrote almost all of it, and got it up to GA level. After sitting on it for a few months, I'm still pretty pleased with the way it turned out, and I think it can go all the way. Early-90's games can be hard to source, as the games journalism (cough) field was small and mainly offline, and this game got a surprisingly small marketing push in America for how much it sold in Japan (it's the 21st best-selling SNES game ever, but 80%+ of the sales were in Japan), but I think I've hoovered up everything that could be found and made a pretty nice article. Feel free to explain to me exactly how I'm terribly wrong, or to shock me with easy supports. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Hey, I fielded this page's GAN! Nice to see you've gone a bit further with it; I'll put down some comments later today. Tezero (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Alright, here I go. Just a warning; I'm gonna be more stringent with the prose than I was at GAN:

  • The intro's a bit long considering the size of the article; Reception/Legacy in particular is given a lot of real estate. It could stand at two-thirds its current size and be just fine.
  • "the hero, the girl, and the sprite" - Popoi and Primm should be named.
  • "Flammie, a miniature dragon which is controlled by the player and able to fly freely across the world, represented by an overworld map" - Minor question, but is Flammie's gender given?
  • "In an unspecified time period" - A little wordy; I'd prefer "Sometime".
  • "The three main characters do not have names in the original SNES release" - Does the player pick their names?
  • "scamming people at the dwarves' freak show" - This is phrased as though this show is referenced earlier, but the reader knows nothing about it. At the very least, go like "a freak show held by dwarves".
  • "as well as with her father for setting her up for an arranged marriage" - With whom?
  • "Mana Sword, and" - Shouldn't be a comma here.
  • "amnesiac sprite child" - What does he remember back to?
  • "Over time, however, Thanatos narrows his selection to Dyluck" - Does it say elsewhere in the game why he picks Dyluck? If not, why is this an "over time" process?
  • What does the Mana Beast look like?
  • How does it reveal itself?

I'll be back for Development and onward later. Tezero (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Replying here instead of inline.
  • I don't know why FAC has decided in the past few months that we should all move to 2-paragraph intros, but I disagree- right now game release info, plot, gameplay, development, reception, and legacy get like 1-2 sentences each; any further cut down and I'd be skipping sections. I've done intros this long for much shorter FAs.
  • Done
  • Flammie's male, but it's never relevant beyond that pronouns need to be gendered in English, and I don't see a good way to integrate it into the sentence.
  • Done.
  • Yes, added.
  • Fixed; sorry, characters was clawed out of a lengthier plot section.
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Video game amnesia, not real amnesia, so all of it, even though he obviously knows language and stuff. The quote is "This child received such a shock from drifting here, it lost all its memories." - It's included in the cited quotes.
  • Reworded it; the relevant quote is "For ages I have been searching...for a human with the power to conquer this world... born in the shadow of darkness, and raised in the light of Mana. Dyluck is the one. I cannot wait any longer. My body has grown weak! It is time! Using his body I will take the Mana Fortress, and rule the world!"
  • Renamed creature to dragon; it looks kinda similar to Flammie, but a lot bigger, more monstrous, and less friendly
  • Reworded to "flies in"; it just kinda... shows up. Flies up to the party from below the screen.
@Tezero: alright, responded to everything you've posted so far. --PresN 23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The real-time battle system used in Secret of Mana is described" - Minor, but perhaps this should be "has been described". It's not a recent description, and perhaps one or more of the creators will die before too long.
  • "a lack of sequential text" - ???
  • "Other Western localizations were done to German and French" - Is "to" the right pronoun, and is "Western" necessary?
  • "Kikuta was originally chosen for Secret of Mana after Kenji Ito, who had composed the soundtrack for Final Fantasy Adventure and was originally slated for the project, was forced to drop it due to other demands on his time such as the soundtrack to Romancing SaGa." - Not awful, but kind of a run-on.
  • "to create an immersive three-dimensional sound" - clarify
  • " Rather than use premade MIDI samples of instruments like most game music composers of the time, Kikuta made his own MIDI samples that matched the hardware capabilities of the SNES so that he would know exactly how the pieces would sound on the system's hardware instead of having to deal with audio hardware differences between the original MIDI sampler and the SNES." - Also quite a dinosaur-bite, as my dad would say.
  • "covers both "ominous" and "light-hearted" tracks" - I'd prefer "includes", or switch "tracks" to "themes".
  • "The title track to the game, "Fear of the Heavens", was designed by Kikuta to sync up with the title screen as it slowly faded in due to hardware limitations; at the time trying to match the audio and visual effects in a game was rare." - Hardware limitations? This seems contradictory. Did he succeed in innovating or not?
  • "Secret of Mana was one of the first soundtrack releases in North America for the North American version of a Japanese game" - Had North American adaptations of Japanese games received soundtrack releases elsewhere? If not, strike "in North America".
  • "with the catalog number N25D-019"/"catalog numbers PSCN-5030 and NTCP-5030" - Relevance?
  • Actually... Given how droning and repetitive the text in this paragraph is - which is, to a large extent, not your fault - it might work better as a bulleted list.
  • "Secret of Mana shipped 1.83 million copies worldwide" - should be "had shipped" or "has shipped"
  • "were also highly reviewed" - There could easily be more releases, so I'd prefer "have also been highly reviewed".
  • Why is Re-releases part of Reception, especially when they're discussed earlier? I'd put it in Development.
  • Not a strict objection, but why is the image of Flammie flying a GIF? It doesn't move.

Everything else looks fine, I'd say. Tezero (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Done
  • Moved down and reworded
  • Dropped Western and changed to into
  • Split
  • Reworked a bit, though those word choices were Kikuta's
  • Split
  • changed to includes
  • reworded
  • done
  • Removed
  • I'll see what I can do, but embedded lists are rarely the answer.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Don't know, that's just what the original image was, and I left it in the article. GIFs don't need to be animated, by the way, that's not their only purpose, though PNG might be better for this image since there aren't large color blocks.
--PresN 20:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support, then. Interesting about GIFs, that; I did not know that. Tezero (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever[edit]

Can you expand the "legacy" part of the article? }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 03:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really; if I had sources to do so I would have, but I don't. That's the problem with games from the early 90s that weren't that popular in America as compared to Japan, and whose series kinda faded out outside of Japan- Seiken 3 never got released in English, and Seiken 4 (Legend of Mana) was the last one to do well at all. --PresN 23:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support, everything in this article is fine. =D }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 13:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


  • I agree that lede sections of 3 paragraphs sound fine by me. However, some of the lede feels... inconsequential? Is the speed of the translation or the fact that the game was retranslated for iOS really that important? Also, the reference to two rather minor games in the lede seems to undercut the claim to be influential later on. Both these bits feel quite cuttable, not because the lede is too long otherwise, but because they aren't really impactful for the lede.
  • I ought to clarify this: I'm not against ledes longer than two paragraphs per se; I'm guilty of that many times over, with an article I have at GAN right now having a four-paragraph lede. Rather, I thought it went into a lot of detail given the amount of text in the article's body. I think I can still support how it is, but like with SnowFire, a bit of compression would be appreciated. Tezero (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I agree with using the character names in the article. How influential is the iOS version compared to the original? The old "Nintendo Power" and other printed sources always simply referred to them as the Boy, the Girl, and the Sprite. Online fansites have traditionally used "Purim" for the Girl's Japanese name rather than "Primm" as well. Anyway, I'd rather stick to Boy/Girl/Sprite myself short of some evidence the iOS default names are the commonly used ones now, but suppose I'll defer to your judgment. (That said, regardless, can this reference be included for the names? More useful than the Japanese page currently there.)
  • "The hero, while unable to use magic, excels at fighting... the sprite is physically the weakest." Uh, not to be "that guy", but the differences in damage & health in the cast are actually quite minor. Checking the IGN review linked as the reference, it doesn't say the sprite is physically weak either, merely noting that he's the master of offensive magic. I'd leave it at just what the IGN review says - the Boy masters weapons quickly, the Girl casts mostly defensive & healing magic, the Sprite casts mostly offensive magic.
  • "mana represents an ethereal, but finite, energy source" --> If it was 'finite' how did the world ever recover? I got the impression from the SNES translation more that bad things happened when the old civ used too much at once for evil purposes, not that it was like oil where once it's gone it's gone. I'd suggest removing 'finite' and add "technologically advanced" next to civilization, as it should be made clear it was a modern-esque civ.
  • "Dyluck, who was ordered by the King to attack Elinee's Castle, which is considered a virtual suicide mission" --> Is this something added in the iOS version? I don't recall anyone being particularly sure it was a 'suicide mission', and a quick check of the SNES script seems to confirm. It's not even really that relevant, all that matters is the Girl rans after him to save him - I'd just cut the part out about 'virtual suicide mission.'
  • " leaves the castle to join the hero in his quest, hoping to save Dyluck as well" - Actually, it's more "the girl leaves the castle to save Dyluck, accompanying the Boy as well." The game is interestingly consistent on this, she's only interested in saving Dyluck; if the Boy doesn't even go try to catch up with Dyluck and goes directly to Gaea's Navel, the Girl will leave the party for a time and state she's going to Dyluck.
  • "Unbeknownst to the Emperor or his subordinates, they are being manipulated by Thanatos" -- Thanatos is a chief advisor to all of these people, so it's pretty beknownst. The fact he later betrays them is mentioned later.
  • "as well as music from Bali" - Bali, the Indonesian island? Bali, the name of some other musician? Seems like a classic case for a wikilink....
  • Per above, a lot of the information in the soundtracks section feels repetive, and the perfect kind of data to slough off in a sidebar infobox.
  • Is it worth also mentioning the referenced RPGFan article comments about the blisteringly poor reception to Secret of Mana Genesis, that it's 'arranged' but almost identical to the OST?
  • 'Kikuta has said that they are "how he wanted the music to sound when he wrote it"' - #1, this is one of those vague bland useless quotes that might as well be cut anyway. #2, it's not clear in the text who you're even quoting from (it is RPGFan in this case) if you want to keep it.
  • Is there anything more to say in the re-releases? New reviews, commentary on the differences, etc.? Or even just a statement that these re-releases generated little notice. (Incidentally, if there isn't, that argues more for using the Boy/Girl/Sprite names per the above, but that's just me.)
  • "Secret of Mana has been on numerous all-time "best games" lists" --> This is more a pet peeve of mine, but tons of Wikipedia articles these days are just in love with mentioning every minor listicle they get mentioned in - this song was listed as one of Random British Magazine's 25 hottest songs of the summer, etc. It's great you dug all this up, but I'd personally suggest sticking some of the awards in a footnote. (For example, IGN usually provided *two* Top 100s every year, one reader-voted and one editor-submitted. And there'd be random churn each year. That's a lot more than 100 games that make such top 100 lists over time, for all that Secret of Mana is in fact great.) Feel free to disagree though, lots of good WP articles seem to be in love with these lists of mentions, so.

Nice work overall, of course. SnowFire (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Responses:
  • Dropped the less-important bits
  • Removed all places where I used their name directly; the fact that they have names outside of the initial NA release is mentioned once in gameplay and again in setting, but that's it. The iOS version isn't a big enough deal to contradict the lack of names originally; it's just the only version I've played so I over-weighted it. Used that English reference as well.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Given that there's an entire Mana music article, I just pulled out a bunch of the boring bits- length, publishing dates, publishers, etc. Tried to rework some of the sentence flow to make it less choppy- most of this section was copied from a GA I did years and years ago, and it shows.
  • Added as a comment after the Kikuta quote
  • Sourced
  • Added a little comment that there were fewer reviews for the other versions, even if they still got high scores- they are just ports, after all, which usually don't get much.
  • Dropped some of them, since they got laborious. What I really want is to replace the whole thing with a source that says definitively that SoM is considered one of the best 16-bit RPGs, or one of the best SNES games, and I guess I'm using top-100 lists as a proxy for that. For a more modern game I could just use awards, but... 1993.
  • @SnowFire: --PresN 20:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I made a few changes myself - please take a look and modify if needed. Anyway, Support. I will say that while I think this article is FA quality, there is still room for improvement, especially in the Reception & Legacy section, just I'm sure it'll be aggravatingly hard to get good sources for it. (I think the Edge quote is a bit hyperbolic when it claims SoM arrived "unhyped and unheard of" - anecdotally, SoM was Known among people who owned a SNES, certainly among anyone who enjoyed action-RPGs, and 300K sales in NA was *just fine* by standards then. And of course there are surely more Japanese sources lurking out there.) SnowFire (talk) 06:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "The Japanese release referred to the three protagonists as Randi, Primm and Popoi ...": It's probably not necessary to say this three times.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Very readable, and a very easy copyediting job. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and I've pulled the extraneous Randis- thought I'd chopped it down to two, but I guess not. --PresN 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: A great article. Props to PresN for putting up with a very long and intensive review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Image check (GermanJoe) - all OK[edit]

  • 3 fair-use images of sufficient low resolution and valid rationale (see second comment) - OK.
  • The third fair-use -of a Mode 7 screenshot- is a close call (we have a separate "Mode 7" article, where such a screenshot may be better). But if it's a significant feature of this specific game, it should be OK here aswell.
  • Other images of developers are CC, with sufficient source info and personality rights tag - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review by Tezero[edit]

Will do. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • 8. You might consider linking Nintendo World Report.
  • All sources look reliable, though you might want to specify right away in the citation somewhere that 34 is an interview since Square Haven doesn't otherwise look like an RS.
  • Spotchecks (is this enough?):
  • 34: good
  • 54: good
  • 44: good, but you might want to specify that these differences are between the SNES originals and the rearrangements
  • 24: good, though it took me a bit to find "FF III" as I'd been looking for the more general "Final Fantasy III", "experience", and "level up"
  • 14: good, I assume
  • 64: good in that it contains the appropriate content, but it was a dead link for me (archive), though this may be because of this library computer's lousy Windows-Firefox setup. I'd recommend checking a few for dead links.

Tezero (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! swapped deadurl=no to deadurl=yes for the IGN top100 lists; all three live links are dead for me too. --PresN 21:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Alright, cool. Continue to support based on sources. Tezero (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The AI Mk. IV was the world's first air-to-air radar, if existing histories are complete (one would hope after almost a century). Although not a tremendous success, it filled an important gap in coverage during critical periods of the war, and perhaps more importantly, acted as the basis for many other very successful radar systems like the ASV and Type 7. It's also a story complete with infighting, backstabbing, rushed moves, incompetence and lucky breaks.

This article was created offline over a three month period, so it appears ex nihlo largely complete. With the exception of some GR and SP, and some ongoing work sourcing additional images and switching cites (I'm using original authors where possible, as opposed to newer sources), the article should be largely complete and stable.

I think it's a fascinating bit of history, and I hope you will to.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Several captions need editing for grammar, particularly punctuation
  • File:Handley_Page_Heyford.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Fairey_Battle_ExCC.jpg: approximate date?
  • File:Hugh_Dowding.jpg: date link is redirecting
  • File:Original_cavity_magnetron,_1940_(9663811280).jpg: source link is redirecting
  • File:AI_Mk_IV_simulated_display.jpg: not seeing licensing info at source link - where does the CC license come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Which captions need editing? As to the sourcing I can only speak to the last one, it's filed with ORTS and we're just waiting for it to get stamped as such. As to the rest, as they are all clearly in PD, do we need to fix any of these issues? If so, is that my job or the up loaders? I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we need to be able to verify that the information given is correct if you're going to be using those images in a potential FA. Captions in particular need of editing include RDF 1.5, ASV emerges, Baedeker Blitz, and Displays and interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I read over the captions you mentioned above, but I honestly don't see anything wrong with them. Can you be very specific, or simply fix them? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
All images have been replaced with sourced versions. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jamesx12345

  • Refs 85, 93 and 95 don't point to anything at the moment.
  • "shot up" - this sounds like a bad pun. "Increased rapidly" might be more appropriate.
  • "The Mk. IV began being replaced at the end of 1941 by the prototype Mk. VII" - "The prototype Mk. VII began to replace the Mk. IV at the end of 1941"
  • "could only be expected to" - was this the designers' assessment, and does the inaccuracy result from this delay or something else? A reference for this statement would be nice.
I got all of these except one. The last one is interesting - if you found the wording difficult, perhaps you can come up with another way to say it. The basic idea is that each of the reporting systems -huff-duff, CH and ROC- had slightly different *in*accuracies so if you plotted the reports on a map you didn't get a single point but three separated ones. Additionally, the target aircraft were moving throughout this process. So unless you have zero reporting times, by the time you get the instructions to the fighter pilot the target is long gone. The intercept officers were trained to estimate the future location of the target based on interpolating the movement of the reports, but this was based on old and conflicting information. All of this added up. Do you think I should expand this section? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Hey James, I found some discussion of the accuracy issue in Bowen's book, which you can see on Google Books - at least it's visible to me, who knows what they'll let you see! I added two relevant mentions from that book, let me know if you think the statement is OK to go now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
That's perfect - it reads more nicely as well. Jamesx12345 21:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "forefathers" - "predecessors"
  • "arranged before they reached" - "arranged before the bombers reached" - bit clearer
  • "the first definition of the technical" - I think criteria might be a better word.
  • "was not available, at least not in portable form" - "was not available in portable form"
  • Daventry Experiment can be linked.
  • "...radar systems at this period of the war." - is it a war yet?
  • "further increase in power to as much as 2 kW" - is that peak or continual?
All in James! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments on the first two paragraphs. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Maury, welcome to FAC.
  • "was the ultimate model": I know you mean "final", but the other meanings (best, defining, etc.) are more common, and some readers don't get the "final" meaning at all.
  • "First considered in 1936,": I don't actually know what that means. Did someone think it would be a nice thing to have? Did they do some pencil sketches? Did they build a prototype?
  • "rushed moves and three abandoned production designs": Does the "rushed moves" mean something other than rushing three designs into production and then abandoning them?
  • "offered detection ranges against large aircraft on the order of 20,000 feet": Reading quickly, I saw one test at exactly 20,000 feet ... what was the variation in this (at sufficient altitude), roughly?
  • " It used two cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for display and considerable effort was required on the part of the radar operator to translate these into instructions for the pilot.": Not a major point, go with this if it works for you: "Considerable effort was required of the radar operator to interpret the displays of its two cathode ray tubes (CRTs) for the pilot." - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Dank, I've added all of these. And yes, that definitely worked for me :-) Detection ranges were given 18 to 20k feet against German bombers, which may be simply due to differences in sizes of the different bombers - I assume a Do 17 is harder to see than a He 111. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I've also made a few edits to the lede to help clarify the "rushed moves" bit. See if that is better. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
In response to Ian's note below ... Maury, I don't have any objections right now, I may come back to this when the reviews are farther along. - Dank (push to talk) 12:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


  • Please provide a conversion for metric wavelengths for US readers on first use, and any other metric only measurements as well.
  • Expand the abbreviation of RDF on first use.
  • A Ford what? Motor car or Trimotor?
  • Link igition coil, RAF squadrons and be sure to capitalize Squadron if giving the squadron number,
  • revive RDF 1.5 concept "the" RDF
  • Tell the reader that W is an abbreviation for watt. Furthermore, watt isn't normally capitalized. Same for other electrial units like volts, etc.
  • Fix your overlinks.
  • Just like you do for ships, you need to tell the reader what kind of aircraft they are.
  • You give the impression that the Blen conversions were done to make them more suitable for the night fighter role. This is not the case, they were done to give the RAF long-range fighters. Happily their extra endurance and size made them suitable for the NF role. So rephrase that bit to explain that properly. In every aircraft-oriented source I've got the terminal letter in RAF designations is capitalized, not lower case.
  • No. 25 what? Squadron? Done through operation use. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
All of the sources I used refer to this radar as a "1.5 meter" in "class terms". That includes US sources from this era. I do not use the term to indicate an exact measure, that is 193 MHz.
I don't know what Ford, the source simply says "Ford ignition coil".
I don't understand. "RDF 1.5" is a name for a class of devices, shouldn't it be read with a "the" in front, like "the dishwasher"?
As you used it, "RDF 1.5 concept" doesn't refer to any device, but rather the idea behind the devices. So "the RDF 1.5 concept".
Ahh, it was a different instance.
Which over links? Is there a tool for finding them?
Add this script
Very useful!
Sorry, I don't understand which aircraft you mean.
All of them where you don't tell the reader what type it is on first use. Forex, you refer to the Spitfire without telling the reader that it's a fighter, etc.
Do you have a source for this? I know that the Blenheim article states this, but it is not references, and both Brown and Bowen have passages that suggest the opposite. The same is true for the lower-case "f", which is found throughout Bowen, Brown, Lovell and others. I will add a note about this.
The Air Ministry approved the addition of a four-gun belly pack to the Blenheim I, converting it into the Blenheim IF, in late 1938 and the Blenheim IVF entered service in August 1939. So both variants considerably predated service use of AI radar. And the terminal letter is capitalized in histories of the aircraft, so I can only presume that the radar historians either didn't care about such details or were ignorant of the proper format. See Chaz Bowyer, Bristol Blenheim, isbn 0-7110-1351-9, pp. 22, 27.
This is precisely my concern though - the book you note was written in 1984, so is it more likely that the people actually flying in the aircraft got it wrong, or that in the 50 years between the events and the publication of this book that historians "selected" a particular format? I should note that during that same period, we've changed the basic way we write dates twice, our entire measurement system, and dropped the hyphen from just about everything. I'll change them, but I'm worried about confusion as the text will no longer match the primary references.
While I understand your point, I don't necessarily credit it. I suspect that the boffins who were the sources for Brown, et al., neither knew nor cared about the proper format for the designation of their aircraft. Generally, they weren't the ones filling out the paperwork for the aircraft and were likely less exposed to documents on the aircraft itself in comparison to the radar and electric systems of the aircraft that they were likely responsible for.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I found one instance. Any others?
Haven't gotten that far.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could post your replies directly under each individual comment as it assists me if matching up replies to the appropriate comment.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to be mostly offline until early next week, so I'll take this up again at that time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Me too, another "holiday". Uggg. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Done?

All of the notes above have been completed. What do we do to drive this forward? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

  • If you haven't already, pls ping the reviewers above to check that they believe their comments are resolved and that there's nothing more that they think requires work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Sorry for the delay, but I've been distracted by a cross-country move.
  • There was only one Blenheim II built, an unsuccessful reconnaissance variant, so none were available to be converted into IIFs. Also, the conversion into the F model wasn't experimental at all.
Both Brown and White call it a II. Is there the possibility that the single unit was converted to NF use?
Possible; as my really thorough book on the Blenheim is packed away, I really can't say that it didn't happen.
  • Provide a conversion for 20 mm on first use and five miles.
20mm is a name not a dimension, five miles converted.
In this case, it's not a name at all, but it is a measurement and so needs to be converted. If you'd used 20 mm Hispano cannon, I'd have accepted that as the link is equivalent to the conversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure that Dowding's rejection of non-AI methods to defeat the Blitz led to his dismissal, but it's been years since I read up on that part of the BoB.
Directly stated in Zimmerman, White and several other sources. Occurred immediately after he dismissed the second of the two night fighting reports.
Fair enough; I can't say for sure one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Rephrase this The Germans were beginning their attacks in the east to state that they were preparing for the invasions of Yugoslavia, Greece, and Russia as well as committing aircraft to the Western Desert.
Details of the Luftwaffe's order of battle are well covered elsewhere. As all of these are east of UK, I'm not sure more detail is warranted.
Maybe so, but I think that you're making an unwarranted assumption. You needn't list all of the operations causing the withdrawals, but you need to do something in case a bloke starts wondering, "'Ere, what's 'e going on about?"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Link to 604 Squadron and fix capitalization
  • Apostrophe missing Luftwaffes
Awaiting details on technical issue. FIXED.
Now I'm curious what the technical issue was? The triple apostrophe marks when using a possessive with an italicized word?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a little confusing: they would approach at low altitude and then dive again after releasing their bombs, making interceptions with the Mk. IV possible only during the period when the bomber climbed for its bomb run. Move the bit about climbing to the beginning of the sentence to keep the sequencing straight for the reader.
  • This is awkward: During a flight in February 1941 at 20,000 feet (6.1 km) he suddenly awoke in an ambulance on the ground;[121] his oxygen supply had failed. I see no need for the semi-colon, just combine the two sentences as they naturally flow together.
  • superior of the Mk. IV Shouldn't this be "to" rather than "of"?
  • Missing a word: but they had such a low priority the conversions were not complete

Through up to description.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

All that's left are the refs, which I'll do shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Eggcelent. Excellent work BTW. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

James Chadwick[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC) and Nobeljeff (talk)

This article is about yet another scientist, James Chadwick is the man who discovered the neutron. In 1932, with a laboratory instrument literally made from string and sealing wax. The group photo of the Cavendish Lab staff that year had eight Nobel Prize winners sitting in the front row. Rutherford. Thomson. Kapitza. Cockcroft. Blackett. And then there was the neutron. Chadwick found it, measured it, weighed it. Within just a few years neutrons would be the key ingredient in a scientific endeavour on an unprecedented scale. And Chadwick played a key part in all of this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I copyedited the article at A-class per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, for example Pollard being his student, do not appear to be sourced in the text
  • Why bold Chadwick's name in Notes?
  • FN46: page?
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the emboldened names in the papers. Someone has been going around creating DOI templates for famous papers. So the links to Chadwick appear bold in his own article. I like to have the original papers linked in the scientific articles so readers can see them for themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

This looks to be a well-written, well laid out article. I particularly like the fact that it is low on jargon and is understandable to a non-physicist like me. A few points on the prose:

  • What was the occupation of his father?
    • Added his parents' occupations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "He was named after his paternal grandfather" - It would be helpful if the name "James" was mentioned somewhere in this paragraph.
  • "At the age of 16, he sat for two university scholarship examinations, and was offered both." - Was he really offered two university scholarship examinations?
    • Two scholarships. At the age of 16, he sat two examinations for university scholarships, and won both of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "This time the resulting paper was published under his name only." - I don't care for the "only" at the end of this sentence.
    • Changed to "alone". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "The reason for this would remain unexplained for many years." - This is an ambiguous remark.
    • The continuous spectrum would remain an unexplained phenomenon for many years. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "At a conference at Cambridge on beta particles and gamma rays in 1928, Chadwick met Geiger again, who brought with him a new model of his Geiger counter, which had been improved by his post-doctoral student Walther Müller." - This sentence is rather long and convoluted.
    • Split. At a conference at Cambridge on beta particles and gamma rays in 1928, Chadwick met Geiger again. Geiger had brought with him a new model of his Geiger counter, which had been improved by his post-doctoral student Walther Müller. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "... used polonium to bombard beryllium" - I think you mean particles emitted by polonium rather than the stuff itself?
    • Yes, but I've spent so much time writing about polonium that hadn't occurred to me.
  • "Chadwick had his Australian 1851 Exhibition scholar, Hugh Webster, duplicate their results." - "had" is not ideal here, perhaps "asked" or "directed" or somesuch.
    • No, that won't do. Have to think of something else. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "His research into such matters were complicated by ..." - Perhaps "was" rather than "were".
  • "Observing the work on the K-25 gaseous diffusion facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, he realised how wrong he had been about building the plant in wartime Britain." - This needs some explanation, - which of his ideas was wrong?
  • "... the Hungarian-born economist Peter Bauer. Bauer was subsequently involved in what became known as the Peasants' Revolt, in which fellows led by Patrick Hadley voted an old friend of Chadwick's off the council and replaced him with the younger Bauer." - Too many Bauers.
    • In what became known as the Peasants' Revolt, fellows led by Patrick Hadley voted an old friend of Chadwick's off the council and replaced him with Bauer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "He anticipated that neutrons would become a major weapon in the fight against cancer." - This fact from the lead is not mentioned again in the body of the article as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Added this. Chadwick anticipated that neutrons and radioactive isotopes produced with them could be used to study biochemical processes, and might become a weapon in the fight against cancer.
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I am happy with the changes you have made and now support this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. An interesting article about an interesting man! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Headbomb[edit]

  • ... sent Chadwick about 2 millicuries curies are a unit of radiation, not an amount of mass/substance. Rephrase.
  • No, Curies is what is used then and today. Polonium is 4490 curies/g, so 2 millicuries is 445 ng. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This had a bit of false precision in the conversion. I put 0.5 µg instead. However, this assumes that the polonium sent to Chadwick was pure Po-210. Was this the case? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Given the short half life of Polonium, that would be impossible. But she made it from lead oxide. The amount of polonium is measured from the alpha emission. So 2 mCu means you have 500 ng. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm... Do you know in what form this polonium was sent then? "... Meitner sent Chadwick about 2 millicuries (about 0.5 µg) from Germany, in the form of a <type of sample>." This is a minor point, but if you know/if it can be found, it would be good to add it IMO. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • the mass of the neutron experimentally, and found that it was greater than that of the proton thereby confirming this theory. This makes it look like the mass of the neutron being greater than the proton is a key feature of the theory, and the reason why the theory is right. I'm very doubtful that in the 1930s you could measure the mass of protons and neutron with enough resolution to measure a significant difference between the two. And I'm also pretty sure that expectations were that the neutron and protons had about the same mass. This passage, and those surrounding it, need to be reworked to give a better and more accurate explanation of this.
  • Measuring the mass of a proton is something we did in high school, so the readers will know how. As for the neutron, you sadly underestimate the genius of Chadwick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Decided to include this in the article.
  • The expanded section is clearer, but it still makes the point that the mass of the neutron being greater than the mass of the proton is what confirms the theory to be right. This claim will be very puzzling to most, given that Chadwick predicted the mass of the neutron to be less than that of the proton, contradicting the experimental findings. What confirms the theory to be right is that the masses of the neutron and protons are very similar (which is why changing the model of nitrogen nucleus from 14p+7e to 7p+7n still gave the right mass). I don't know how Chadwick estimated the mass of the neutron, but I'm pretty sure he was happy to predict the mass within 0.2% of experimental results. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • How Chadwick calculated the mass of the neutron is now in the article!
In his paper, Chadwick estimated that a neutron weighed about 1.0067 u. As a proton and an electron together weighed 1.0078 u, this implied a binding force of about MeV, which sounded reasonable. Then Maurice Goldhaber, a refugee from Nazi Germany and a graduate student at the Cavendish Laboratory, suggested that deuterons could be photodisintegrated by gamma rays:
γ  →  1
Chadwick tried this and found that it worked. They measured the kinetic energy of the protons produced as 1.05 MeV, leaving the mass of the neutron as the only unknown in the equation. He then calculated that it was between 1.0077 and 1.0086 atomic units.
You can read about it in Chadwick's notebook, in his own hand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That's all fine and dandy, but that doesn't resolve the core of the problem mentioned in my previous post in this thread. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The prevailing theory was that the neutron was a composite particle like an alpha particle, but consisting of an electron and a proton. (The mass of an electron is negligible compare to a proton or neutron.) By determining that the neutron actually weighed more, Chadwick demonstrated that this could not be the case. So it had to be a new kind of particle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
When you rewrite this section, could you also add the original articles by Bohr/Chadwick/Heisenberg/Goldhaber/others? I don't have access to Brown, but I would have access to those (as I suspect many others). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Added the original articles by Heisenberg. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • Chadwick was a critic of the American approach to science. He refuted Lawrence's claims, which he correctly considered due to contamination. Rutherford and Oliphant then found that deuterium fuses to form helium-3, discovering nuclear fusion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Added a bit. I wrote that article too. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The expanded version hits the nail on the head, but it needs original sources for Lawrence/Rutherford/Oliphant's claims. Also, in which he considered careless should that be which (Big Science), or whom (Lawrence)? Or is my grammar off here? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Re-worded. Not sure what you mean by original sources. The paragraph is footnoted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The rewording is fine. And by original sources I mean the original articles/proceedings/letters/etc... where Lawrence/Rutherford/Oliphant's made those claims. I.e. in what publication did Lawrence postulate the new particle? (Is this the "light neutron" in Heilbron & Seidel? doi:10.1103/PhysRev.44.313?) Where did Chadwick expressed that the results were likely due to contamination? Where did Lawrence rechecked his results? Where did Rutherford & Oliphant found deuterium fusion? Etc... I don't doubt that Heilbron & Seidel and Herken support the paragraph (Heilbron & Seidel gives a an impressively detailed history of this whole paragraph actually), but having the primary sources alongside Heilbron & Seidel add a lot for those who want to see the nitty gritty details of it all. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. Heilbron & Seidel cite the appropriate sources, mostly letters, but since most of they are not online, it makes little point to cite the primary sources. Heilbron & Seidel give a good account. There's no requirement to fill the article with primary sources. The gritty details can be found in the subarticles.
  2. It is the light neutron, but Lawrence didn't publish a lot of papers, preferring to make announcements at conferences and in the newspapers. I don't see the value of including an erroneous paper. The Americans generally presumed that they were the most technologically advanced nation on Earth, but in the 1930s Britain was ahead. Chadwick was one of those Britons that Americans found a staunch ally, but prone to being snooty, patronising and condescending.
  3. The other point is about Big Science. Chadwick was one of its progenitors, but did not like it.
  4. As the article says, Chadwick expressed his opinions at the Solvay Conference
  5. As the article says, Rutherford & Oliphant worked at the Cavendish. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Final thoughts

Overall enjoyable, most of the above should be easily fixable. The end of the article is somewhat abrupt however. I like a "Legacy" section of some type, like things named after Chadwick, selected works, etc.. Maybe a "See also" section. Ending with "and then he died" seems... uninspired. Also doi:10.1038/161964a0 and doi:10.1080/00107517208205684 should be explored. I cannot support FA in the current state, but it's close to being there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Ian Rose[edit]

Recusing from coord duties to review, as I have a FAC open myself at the moment...

  • Tweaked prose as I generally do so pls let me know any issues. Few remaining concerns except:
    • I fully agree with Headbomb re. "which he considered careless should that be which (Big Science), or whom (Lawrence)?" -- needs clarification/rewording.
    • Although I took out a second mention of his daughters' names for reasons I explained in the edit summary, you called them Judy and Joanna initially but then Julie and Joanna -- better check that Judy (from the initial mention that I left in) is correct.
    • Under See also, if Chadwick crater is indeed named after the man, as seems to be the implication, why not move to and cite in the Legacy section and just drop the See also?
  • Structure and level of detail seem fine.
  • I'll happily defer to Nikki for the source review.
  • As far as images go, licensing looks good to me though I'd assume File:Solvay1933Large.jpg and File:Liverpool Blitz D 5984.jpg would have a US copyright tag in addition to those present.

Generally looks a worthy addition to your series of mad scientists (is there any other kind?)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Added a 1996 tag to File:Liverpool Blitz D 5984.jpg. Removed the Solvay picture. Cannot understand how Commons can tag an image as author unknown while stating who the author was. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Merged the crater into the Legacy section. Hadn't even noticed that one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Chadwick's twin daughters are Joanna and Judith. (My favourites names were Granville Ryrie's twin daughters, Dee and Dar.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Happy to support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

  • More on images -- Points re. initial check were resolved, have reviewed licensing for two recently added colour picture and both look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment - I came here with a view to making a closing decision but I am concerned about the accuracy of the physics. This phrase jumped out at me: "Chadwick was able to demonstrate that beta radiation produced a continuous electromagnetic spectrum, and not discrete lines as had been thought." I am a biologist and not a physicist, but I think photons and not electrons form the electromagnetic spectrum. Electrons produce a kinetic energy spectrum, which is different. The source used says "the beta ray emission from the radioactive deposit had a continuous range of energy practically from zero up to a certain limit on which was superimposed these peaks". Am I missing something? Graham Colm (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm a mathematician, not a physicist. I think the problem is in the clarity of the wording. From the article on Bremsstrahlung:

Bremsstrahlung "braking radiation" or "deceleration radiation") is electromagnetic radiation produced by the deceleration of a charged particle when deflected by another charged particle, typically an electron... The moving particle loses kinetic energy, which is converted into a photon, thus satisfying the law of conservation of energy... Bremsstrahlung has a continuous spectrum, which becomes more intense and whose peak intensity shifts toward higher frequencies as the change of the energy of the accelerated particles increases. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not at all convinced by this argument and quoting another of our articles does not help. I think that there is a fundamental error here, which calls into question – at least in my mind – the accuracy of the rest of the physics in this article. I would not be confident in promoting this candidate without more reassurance from our physicists. Graham Colm (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I would advise against closing until the concerns about the The mass of the neutron was indeed greater than that of the proton, thereby supporting Bohr and Heisenberg's theory. passage (and surrounding text) have been fully addressed. As it stands, the article is very misleading on that issue.
The mass of a neutron is greater than that of a proton. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That fact is not in dispute, it's the whole explanation that is confusing and misleading. Chadwick predicted a lesser mass, then it was discovered it was greater. If the core of the argument is that different mass implies a different particle than the proton, then what is important is that the mass of the neutron is different, not that it is greater, than that of the proton. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
As for the continuous spectrum, I'll look into it. I didn't even notice EM spectrum, in there. The way I've seen those before was in terms of momentum spectrum [14] (which is more or less equivalent to presenting it in terms of an energy spectrum). I don't think Bremsstrahlung is involved at all, but I'll dig further to confirm. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 61[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This article covers the first highway to connect Thunder Bay to the outside world, in this case, Duluth, Minnesota. The bridge between Canada and the U.S. was done without government approval, but despite that, was officially opened by both governments. I feel this route has some interesting history, and is well written/comprehensive; this merits the star in my eyes. Cheers, Floydian τ ¢ 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it is well-written and meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 04:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments reading now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd put the length in the lead as it is a pretty integral/key fact
Do we have any information on traffic figures? heavy/light traffic issues? any issues with too-heavy traffic? any notable serious accidents?
I hate see also sections - if the film is about the road, then make it a few sentences and reference it.
his involved replacing eight bridges, improving sightlines, the addition of five passing lanes and paved shoulders throughout the length of the highway - streamlining the prose would be better...such as "his involved replacing eight bridges, improving sightlines, and adding five passing lanes and paved shoulders throughout the length of the highway"

Image review

  • File:Outlaw_Bridge.png: not seeing anything in the source to support a 1917 publication for this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

History of KFC[edit]

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This article just needs someone to verify that the references are fine. Tom (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Welcome back. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page ... the reviewers asked you to check the references last time. Have you checked to make sure the references support the statements in the text, without any close paraphrasing? - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have done so. Tom (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I have no objections, given the references check out. Historical writing tends to be on the clunky side, and this article isn't totally immune, but I'm not objecting based on that. It's a very professional article its editors can be proud of. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm too new to FA promotion to do this myself (I'm still trying to figure out GA promotion), so I will defer to Dank or somebody else to proceed on that, if warranted. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 22:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Promotions at FAC are handled by the two FAC coordinators, Ian and Graham. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, this aspect of Wikipedia is something I didn't look at until recently. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support based on what I wrote above. I could quibble about a bit of clumsy writing, but again, it's not enough to get in the way of promotion. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 16:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
First Round of Comments from Ceranthor
  • Why not mention where in Utah the first restaurant opened?
  • Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, KFC experienced mixed fortunes domestically, - Given that this is an article about a huge company, fortune doesn't seem like the best word here. Maybe luck or success?
  • n the early 1970s, KFC was sold to the spirits distributor Heublein, which was taken over by the R.J. Reynolds food and tobacco conglomerate, who later sold the chain to PepsiCo. - Which, not who.
  • and although KFC's fortunes have waned in the US, - Fortunes again.
  • After he reached seven, - Turned would be better. "Reached seven" reads awkwardly.
  • After leaving the family home at age 13, Sanders passed through several professions, with mixed success.[7] - Any idea what some of these were?
  • In 1934, Sanders purchased the larger filling station on the other side of the road and expanded to six tables.[9] - What brand was the larger filling station?
Early franchisees
  • He first used the packaging as a favor to Sanders, - Used is definitely not the right word here.

ceranthor 21:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Epacris impressa[edit]

Nominator(s): Melburnian (talk · contribs) and Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the floral emblem of the state of Victoria. I think it came together well and invite folks to let us know what else we (i.e. me and Melburnian can fix..pronto-like. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment[edit]

Is there some exception with plants regarding the use of the single quotemarks? They shouldn't be double? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

when writing about plant cultivars we'd generally write ones that hadn't been PBR'ed with single quotes and ones that had with double quotes, but I think that is not a general rule. Have seen both here, but single quotes seem to be preferred - see Wikipedia:NCFLORA#Hybrids.2C_cultivars_and_provisional_names Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the exception is mentioned at MOS:QUOTEMARKS (Double or single). --Melburnian (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Another driveby: in the taxonomy section there's this sentence: 'A year later, he described E. nivalis, which he described as an "exceedingly beautiful species", from specimens growing in Loddiges nursery.' This uses "described" twice in different senses of the word, which is awkward and possibly confusing. Can the second use of the word be replaced, one way or another? Off the top of my head "characterized as" or "mentioned as" would be plausible, but neither of them sounds quite right. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed to "wrote of" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


  • File:Epacris_impressa_-_Paxton.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Melburnian (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

A few comments from CorinneSD[edit]

First, the article is quite well-written as it is. I made a few minor copy-edits which you will see. I have just a few questions:

Your copyedits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

1) Toward the end of the section Epacris impressa#Description are the following sentences:

"Within the corolla is a central style with the stigma at the apex and ovary at the base, where the nectar is also located. Different colour forms are often observed growing near each other. The fruit is a 5-locule capsule that is about 3.5 mm (0.14 in) in diameter. It is globular in shape, sometimes with one end flattened, and the style is persistent."

When I saw "and the style is persistent", I figured you meant the shape of the fruit, or capsule, but it could be a little confusing to readers who are not botanists. I may be wrong, but I think this is a different meaning from the first use of "style". Is there any way you could use a different word for the second instance (if it does in fact mean something different from the first use)?

Both instances of the word "style" refer to the floral element so I combined the two mentions to reduce confusion.--Melburnian (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph in the section Epacris impressa#Taxonomy is the following sentence:

"Prolific botanist Robert Brown described Epacris ruscifolia in his 1810 work Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae et Insulae Van Diemen alongside E. impressa".

I wonder about including the adjective "prolific" here. It doesn't relate to anything else in that sentence or paragraph. No adjective before "botanist" would be all right, but if you want to use one, I think it would be more interesting for the average reader to give his nationality.

I ended up removing 'prolific' as (although he was prolific) it is not particularly germane to this article and looks odd when combined with his nationality... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

3) Also in the second paragraph in "Taxonomy" are the following sentences:

"John Lindley described Epacris tomentosa from plant specimens collected during the third expedition of Thomas Mitchell in 1838. Found on Mount William in the Grampians, it was described as "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris with large, curved, purple flowers, allied to E. grandiflora but much handsomer".

This is similar to the problem mentioned above by Nihiltres regarding E. nivalis later in this paragraph. You have the word "described" twice but with different meanings. (I believe the first instance is a botanists' term meaning something like "described for the first time".) In the first sentence you write, "John Lindley described...." Then in the second sentence, you switch to passive voice and say, "it was described as", with a detailed description full of admiration. If that is all right with you, then it can stay. I tried to figure out a way to change it so that you have Lindley saying this rather than the passive voice "it was described as", without making the first sentence longer, but haven't yet.

I changed it to ...Mitchell remarked that it was "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris..., as it was Mitchell's remark in the account of his expedition, rather than Lindley's description, the latter appearing as a footnote in that work.--Melburnian (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

4) The last sentence of the third paragraph in "Taxonomy" is:

"He classified plants collected by Allan Cunningham in the Blue Mountains as E. impressa as a separate species E. reclinata".

This is a little confusing. I think it means:

He classified plants [that had been] collected by Allan Cunningham in the Blue Mountains [and that Cunningham had identified] as E. impressa and identified them as a separate species E. reclinata.

If I am correct, then I think many readers would have trouble gleaning all this meaning from that sentence. I think some words need to be added to the sentence to fill it out and make the meaning clear. If I am wrong in my guess as to what it means, then that just supports my feeling that the sentence needs clarification.

You are indeed correct and I have tweaked it to try and make it unambiguous... 04:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure the problem is completely cleared up. I will look at it again a little later today. CorinneSD (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I re-worded two sentences in this paragraph to improve flow and clarity.
they look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

5) Regarding spelling: You've got "south-east" in the first paragraph in the lead and "south-eastern New South Wales" in the fourth paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy. I thought "southeast" was one word and "southeastern" was one word.

I removed the hyphen.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

6) Regarding measurements: I see you used the conversion template for measurements early in the article. I've exchanged ideas with Sminthopsis84 on this. I know metric measurements are expressed in decimals (ml., centimeters, meters, kilometers), but inches and feet are not usually expressed in decimals. For readers (like me) who are used to inches and feet, a decimal such as 0.3 inch or 2.5 inches means very little. We can't get a mental picture of the size of the plant, length of stem or leaves, etc. Is there a way to calculate the inches measurements so that they are expressed as 1/8 inch, 1/4 inch, 1/3 inch, 1/2 inch, 3/4 inch, 1-1/2 inch, etc., and feet so that they are 1'6", 2'8", etc., and delete the decimal that came out of the conversion template? – CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See, funny you should say that, as that is what I did initially at FAC (see Banksia ericifolia) before (I recall) folks suggesting different. I am morethan happy to dispense with decimal places for imperial units...will have a look round and see if/when we discussed it...I have now asked at MOS as I am intrigued myself.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
See User talk:Sminthopsis84#Anise. CorinneSD (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
hmmm, ok - it's late here and I think I will sleep on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)I must admit I do prefer fractions...amused there is "6 ft 7 in"..I can't look at that and not be reminded of Mae West's famous quip when meeting a 6 ft 7 in cowboy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
(See some additional comments, interspersed above.) The fifth paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy begins:
"In his 1972 publication A Handbook to Plants in Victoria, Victorian botanist Jim Willis..."
Even though you've got "Victoria" in the title of the book A Handbook to Plants in Victoria there, the adjective "Victorian" before a name often means "from the Victorian age". I don't think you mean that because he published a book in 1972. You probably mean that he is/was from the province/state of Victoria in Australia (and Australians would be more likely to immediately associate "Victorian" with "from Victoria"). Do you really need to say that he was from Victoria? I don't think it's necessary. I think just "botanist" is enough, or perhaps "Australian botanist". The nationality would be an interesting bit of information for non-Australians. CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to "Australian botanist".--Melburnian (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD - I think we've covered (or replied to) all concerns raised so do you think it looks now...? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Here are just a few minor issues:

1) At the beginning of the lead, I'm wondering whether "the southeastern part of Australia" wouldn't sound better than "the southeast of Australia".

Hmmm, I was musing on this - "Australia's southeast" sounds more natural to me but I suspect could be construed as a tad informal, so yeah I think it's slightly unfamiliar but ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2) Just after that, you give the usual height range of the plant as:

"about .5 m (1 ft 8 in) to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) tall".

I'm wondering whether it would read better if you put the range in the metric system first and then the range in feet and inches:

"about .5 m to 1 m (1 ft 8 in to 3 ft 3 in) tall".
Yep - agree it's an improvement and would have done myself (thx!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(By the way, I know it's probably Mos style, but in the U.S., the abbreviations "ft." and "in." are always written with a period after them, so it looks really odd the way they are written.)

Is it worth discussing and changing the template maybe? Beyond the scope of this a little... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

3) In this sentence:

"It grows best in a well-drained but moist soil in a semishaded position",

I don't think the indefinite article "a" is necessary before "well-drained but moist soil". I guess botanists and landscapers may use a jargon in which "soil" is treated as a countable noun (thus having a singular and a plural form), but "soil" is normally an uncountable noun, so does not require an article before it. It would then read:

"It grows best in well-drained but moist soil..."

If you prefer a countable usage, you could add: "an area of", so it would read:

"It grows best in an area of well-drained but moist soil...."

If you really like the countable usage of "soil", perhaps the plural:

"It grows best in well-drained but moist soils..."

but if you like the singular "a well-drained but moist soil", that's fine.

Hmmm, I must have left that in accidentally - it is unequivocally better without indefinite article (agreed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

4) I made two copy-edits at the beginning of Epacris impressa#Description. Hope you approve. After I saved them, I saw that at the beginning of the section you give a range of height, grouped as I suggested above. However, you have used en-dashes. I wonder if you would consider using the word "to" instead of en-dashes? I think it would be easier to read.

I like using "to" liberally instead of dashes - regardinng this, I think I might need to tweak - it is the plant that grows to height X, not its habit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You're completely right. I think I was a little tired when I was editing last night.
have changed dash to "to" ...and removed a couple of convert templates....mixing it up a little... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

5) In the middle of the second paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy, I think there may be a "hanging participle"; I'm checking with Rothorpe at User talk:Rothorpe#Epacris impressa 2 to be sure.

I was right. See User talk:Rothorpe#Epacris impressa 2. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
hanging participle duly removed ..cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
I just realized that the usual phrase is "dangling participle". I don't know why I called it a hanging participle. But it's fixed, anyway. I'm wondering whether you would consider adding a word in front of "encountering":
"After encountering....", or
"Upon encountering....". I think it needs something.
Hmmm, I am happy enough without, but I am prone to dropping pronouns and particles all over the place...folks are often asking me to I'll take "Upon" please for 50 points... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

6) The last sentence of the first paragraph in Epacris impressa#Ecology reads:

"Field work in the Mount Lofty Ranges in South Australia recorded the white-plumed and New Holland honeyeaters, as well as crescent honeyeaters and eastern spinebill".

I'm just wondering "eastern spinebill" should be plural, "eastern spinebills", to parallel the plural "crescent honeyeaters" or whether it is all right as it is. Maybe "spinebill" is one of those words that can be either singular or plural.

Aah, "crescent honeyeater" should have been singular there - all are species-as-units there and hence singular. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

7) The first sentence in Epacris impressa#Cultivation reads:

"Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825, who had propagated it from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia".

I'm wondering about the use of the relative pronoun "who" to refer to a nursery. In U.S. usage, "who" is used only to refer to a person or people. I believe that in British usage, it can refer to an organization or government agency. Is that also Australian usage?

oops, missed that...should have been "which"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's all. It's a very nice article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See my notes at Items 4 and 5, above. I want to ask you about your use of the green font color. I think it's such a good idea. It really makes your comments stand out. I'd like to do the same, but is there a place on WP where one can select from among various colors? I wouldn't want to use the same color that you are using. CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
You think I should convert all the dashes? for little fiddly mm-type thingies seems a bit laboured..but if you really think so I am not the colour...will take to your talk page 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

A nice article. A few points on the prose (mostly) struck me:

  • "It generally grows as a small shrub, about .5 m (1 ft 8 in) to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) tall, with small stiff leaves." - I thought at first that this was a conversion error but eventually spotted the previously invisible decimal point before the 5.
I've dispensed with the template as it sounds better like this...and kept a '0' in Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead is a bit short.
Did a little but hard as the article itself isn't that big,, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I still think the lead section is inadequate. It doesn't mention taxonomy and does not summarise the "Ecology" section, merely providing a couple of examples but omitting the regeneration after bushfires. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I thought the Taxonomy section comprehensive and excellent.
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Honeyeaters such as the eastern spinebill are attracted to the flowers in their native habitat." - "in their native habitat" seems redundant. I think of it...and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "... attaches itself to the feather on the heads of the birds ..." - A single feather?
hmmm, should be plural...and now is Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825, which had propagated it from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia." - this sentence changes subject halfway through.
am in two minds here - I know what you mean but I sorta think this switches 'neatly' here. An happy to field 3rd, 4th opinions on this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the following wording for this sentence:
"Propagated from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia, Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825."
Agreed/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
and I suggest re-wording these two sentences:
"In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States. Initially popular, over seventy cultivars appeared in literature at the time; however, most have since disappeared.
In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States, with over seventy cultivars appearing in the literature at the time. While initially popular, most have since disappeared.
In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States. While initially popular – over seventy cultivars appeared in the literature at the time – most have since disappeared.
CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
taken latter one - first is not right as it makes it sound like there were 70 varieties of alba rather than (correctly) referring to the whole species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "As they age, plants may become straggly, but benefit from hard pruning after fertilizing and watering, which promotes compact, bushier growth afterwards." - "afterwards" is redundant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC) I think of it...and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Cas, I saw your edit to this sentence, but something is still not right:
"Growing in heathland, shrubland or open forest, it is generally as a small shrub..."
Do you think "it is generally as a small shrub" is right? I think you could leave out "as":
"Growing in heathland, shrubland or open forest, it is generally a small shrub...",
or change the verbs:
"Thriving in (or Found in) heathland, shrubland or open forest, it generally grows as a small shrub...". CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It was a sloppy cut and paste - "as" removed.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Most of my comments mentioned above (which have got a bit mixed up with Corinne's) have been satisfactorily dealt with, but I still think that the lead section fails to conform to the MOS as it does not summarise the article fully and includes some specific information that should not be there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok - lead tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy with your alterations to the lead section and am now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Peter coxhead[edit]

Generally this seems to me a very clear, well-written and comprehensive article about a plant species. It gives all the information that could be expected (for example as per WP:Plants/Template), except perhaps its position within the genus – is anything known about origins or phylogeny of the species within Epacris? Has anyone proposed sections within the genus? I support the candidacy of this article. A few small points follow. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anyithing infrageneric in Epacris, but will do another check can't find anything..lots at family or genus level but nothing infrageneric.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I’ve started looking into these two literature sources: 1 2 —but as yet i haven’t obtained the full text copy of the first, paywalled from where i am now, and the best reference source chance of the two; the second is free, interesting in other information, may cite useful other papers and so first i’ll have a quick read of it. --Macropneuma 12:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
damn, can't get that Springer one either at first glance...will see if there's another way...might be too broad but one never knows... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "that is native to Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales in southeast Australia" – any reader who needs to follow the link to "Australia" isn't going to know what the states are (or even that they are states – "South Australia" could just be an area with a stray capital on "south"). I'd be inclined to write something like "that is native to southeast Australia–the states of Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The flower is formed by five petals fused to form the tubelike corolla, with the petal ends free to form five corolla lobes at the apex." – this doesn't seem worded quite right to me; to a non-botanist it may imply that it's only a corolla because the petals are fused. Perhaps something like "The corolla of the flower is formed by five petals, fused at the base to form a tubelike structure, with the free petal ends forming five lobes at the apex."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tricky point, but in the taxobox, Epacris ceriflora is spelt correctly – the ICN requires correction of names originally published with "ae" instead of "i" – but in the text of the Taxonomy section it's spelt ceraeflora. The article could say something like "Dr Robert Graham described Epacris ceriflora (which he spelt ceraeflora) ..."
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "... yet conceded it was difficult to find characters that distinguished ..." The word "concede" is an editorial comment – Graham wrote that "it is extremely difficult to get written characters" [my emphasis] to distinguish the three but that they were "obviously very different species". He neither "conceded" nor said that it was "difficult to find characters", only that it was difficult to describe in writing the characters he considered to distinguish the "obviously" different species.
good catch - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-botanist, I don't understand "it was difficult to describe in writing the characters that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa". What are "characters"? And why is "in writing" necessary? Do you mean he could describe something orally but not in writing? CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I like your clear thinking, re: plain English, here, CorinneSD. As a field botanist who has observed in the field, examples of some of the variation (within what is now thought of as this one species) referred to by those names (synonymised former segregate species names), i confidently assert that that author meant that it is difficult to describe in words (in writing or orally) the plant parts characters (—jargon. The characterising parts of the plants, if you like.) that distinguish those four names. Field observations make remembered mental images (which can have great detail for field botanists); illustrations, including drawings, paintings and more recently the technology of photographs (even 3D photography tech.), may or may not provide sufficient visual description for viewers to distinguish them, but the rules require formally published written description so that would be informal description as it’s unwritten. CorinneSD please help (academic) botany (in this article’s case) to make sense in plain English of what may be their insiders’ obscure information and jargon shifts of word meanings.--Macropneuma 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if this is a dialectal difference between Australian and American English or whether the use of the word "character" in this context is simply botanists' jargon, but when you write, "the characterising features of parts of the plants", I would use the word "characteristics" rather than "characters" in the sentence we are discussing. That would make much more sense to me. If you would accept the change from "characters" to "characteristics", I suggest the following wording (feel free, of course, to modify it):
"it was difficult to put into writing precisely those characteristics that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa" or:
"it was difficult to put into writing the precise characteristics that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa". -- CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input above. I put in: it was difficult to describe the precise characteristics that distinguished ... --Melburnian (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes briefly now, i’m very happy to accept that, as well. (For one of many examples, see the frequent wording in this world renowned botanical key, nicknamed 'The RFK', which people like me use such a lot; perhaps it has some bits of poor English and my frequent use has shifted some of my English usage, including of repeating those parts of it having poor English? —Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.) --Macropneuma 02:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
For a, related, general English semantics example, please consider: The character of a person eg. John’s character. cf. The characteristics of a person, eg. John’s characteristics. --Macropneuma 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
"Character" is the standard term used in biology generally for a precise feature. It's defined in The Kew Plant Glossary as a "single technical difference, used to distinguish taxa". Characters then have particular "character states", so that the character "symmetry of corolla" could have the character state "actinomorphic" or "zygomorphic". The character/character state terminology is standard in phylogenetics, for example – see that article for uses of the term "character". So Melburnian's "precise characteristics" are actually "characters". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Peter Coxhead for finding a biology dictionary/glossary source for its usage—indeed … . --Macropneuma 07:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Also we field botanists often read, write and say the wording of: (botanical) key characters, etc. --Macropneuma 07:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Character could be used but I think it would need to be linked for those that are not familiar with the use of the term in biology and I can't find any article suitable to link it to. --Melburnian (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
@Melburnian: well, there's Character (biology) though it doesn't seem quite right – the use in phylogenetics is important these days. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, the title sounds promising but the redirect to the article Phenotypic trait doesn't help here.--Melburnian (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate all the explanations. I learned something new -- the use of the word "character" in the field of botany. I think the word is closer in meaning to the general word "characteristics" than to the meaning of the word "character" when speaking of a person: "he is a man of good character". If it is not possible to link the word "character" to an explanatory article, I think the word "characteristics" should be used here. The use of the word "character" is mystifying to an average reader, and the article should be written so that an average reader can understand it. If you feel that the word "character" needs to be used, perhaps putting "characteristics" in parentheses after it would suffice. CorinneSD (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I think an implied [character = characteristics] would not be correct here, your original [character = "precise characteristics that distinguished"] is closer to the mark IMHO.--Melburnian (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I liked the way you worded the sentence, Melburnian. I was just responding to Peter Coxhead's statement above: "Character" is the standard term used in biology..." (and arguing against the use of "character"). CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There was a sentence beginning "fit Bentham's original description"; I restored "The plant populations that best" from an earlier version, but please check that this is correct.
yep - good catch Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Freedom from Want (painting)[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the four paintings in a famous painting series by Norman Rockwell. It has sufficient stand-alone encyclopedic content to merit consideration here. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I have notified WP:HUMAN RIGHTS, WP:VISUALARTS, WP:HOLIDAY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have notified the GA2 reviewer Wehwalt.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment leaning support. I did do the GA and gave it a strong going over then. I own a set of the war bond reproduction and spent some time gazing at this one (masterly) before re-reading the article. Very well done. A few minor comments:

  • My spellcheck says "advisment" is misspelled.
  • "relied on neighbors for advice as well as critical commentary in addition to their service as his models" too much added on, a sentence should not have "as well as" followed by "in addition to".
  • "received filled 25,000 orders" either or both?
  • There is one sentence in "Reactions" that deals with European reaction. I would insert that into the second paragraph where this is discussed in greater detail.
  • "It propounded the discussion of rights of citizens who should bear the allegiance to the democracy" I'm not quite certain what this means.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The source says that by pairing the Essay with this painting "the editors of the Saturday Evening Post were illustrating the necessity of the reciprocal relationship between the liberal democratic state and its citizens. The state was obligated to provide a minimal level of subsistence for all of its citizens if all of its citizens were to owe the state the duties and obligations of loyalty, allegiance, identification and, ultimately, self-sacrifice." (page 212)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps something like "It made it clear that while citizens had obligations to the state, the state had an obligation to them to provide a basic level of subsistence."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
  • by artist and illustrator Norman Rockwell: isn't an illustrator an artist? Why not just by artist Norman Rockwell or by American artist Norman Rockwell?
  • Having been partially created on Thanksgiving 1942, it has become an iconic representation of the Thanksgiving holiday: is it iconic because it was partially painted on Thanksgiving, or because it appears to be a Thanksgiving scene? I'd've thought the latter.
  • It has been widely imitated and parodied. is redundant with the following sentence.
  • were enduring hardship at the time: should be obvious, but you might want to explicate what hardship you're talking about.
  • Freedom from Want was published with a...: shouldn't this go with the other publication information in the second paragraph?
  • The illustration is an oil on canvas: I feel like it should read "oil painting on canvas", even though that should be obvious
  • not actually eating because the painting depicts emptiness: the concept of "emptiness"? If so, in what way?
  • In addition there is a covered silver serving dish that would traditionally hold potatoes, according to one source.: this is awkward, in that we've just jumped from the table to the curtains and back again. Also, we should be naming the "once source".
  • However, another source describes this as a covered casserole dish.: and the "other source"
  • The table is the central element of the painting. Then this should probably be stated before the table settings and curtains.
  • use fine artists men, real artists: is there a comma or something missing here? Can yu double-check the quote?
    • Grammatically, there should be commas after the word war in each sentence, but as you can see in the online source, the commas don't exist in the quotes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In mid-November, Hibbs wrote Rockwell pleading that he not scrap his third work in order to start over.: this jumps out suddenly---probably best to explain what would cause him to want to scrap it before having Hibbs try to stop him.
  • soon under the advisement: is "advisement" really the word you want here?
  • the magazine was soon going to place restrictions on four-color printing, so Rockwell had better get the work published before being relegated to halftone printing: the reader likely won't know why the magazine would do this
    • If you are talking about placing restrictions on four-color printing, I don't know why and we don't need to know why here. I presume it has something to do with cost efficiency or technological advancement. I don't need to know which and neither does the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
      • No, the reason almost certainly has to do with wartime rationing, which is important in the context. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
        • As much WP:OR as my 2 possible reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
          • It would be OR if I were telling you to add it without a source. I'm asking you to check the sources. If it does have something to do with the war (which it almost certainly does), then that's important in the context; if it's not, then that should be made clear, as many readers would assume it (as I would) as it was common at the time. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I have expanded this point as much as the source will permit. The source says the government was forcing the change, but does not clarify whether this was part of the military strategy.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Okay, that's much better than it was. If you ever happen to come across a history of th emagazine at the library or something that specifies it was rationing, it would be a good idea to add that. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Jim Martin appears in each painting in the series: who's Martin, and is he the only one who appears in each paintig?
    • Isn't it clear that he is an Arlington neighbor. He is the only one that we have a source for appearing in each image. Also since some of the works only have 2 or 3 subjects, there can't be too many people who are in them all.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It only becomes clear when he's named again shortly after; I'd suggest putting this after that, then. Is it the source that says he was the only one who appeared in all four? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!
        • I have fixed the link for that WP:IC. However, you still need to have a Time subscription to read it in its entirety. I am unable to confirm what the source says at this time. I sourced this before this content was behind a paywall.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • as Hallmark at Christmas, according to Linda Rosenkrantz: maybe this would be better as a quote; I don't think "as Hallmark at Christmas" is vey encyclopaedic.
  • associated with Regionalism: should explicate that REgionalism is an art movement; otherwise it might appear as, say, a political thing.
  • perceived as a depiction of American overabundance.: somewhat redundant with the preceding sentence; perhaps combine them somehow?
  • that is described as coy: who descrives it so?
  • overall I find the "Reactions" section kind of repetitive; ideas mentioned once are brought up in later paragraphs again. It would be best if you could go through this section and reorganize it.
  • catch as catch can manner: too informal for an encyclopaedia
  • written when Rockwell was "at the height of his fame as America's most popular illustrator.": why is this quoted rather than paraphrased?

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 01:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring the socioeconomic hardships domestically rather than those enduring sociopolitical hardships abroad: this doesn't have sufficient context for it to make sense---which hardships are "the" hardships? Also, the home vs abroad thing was a criticisim, rather than an aspect of the essay, right? I might shorten it to something like "Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring domestic wartime socioeconomic hardships".
  • a special occasion for "sharing what we have with those we love": attribution?
  • Rockwell's work came to be categorized within art movements and styles such as Regionalism and American scene painting. It sometimes displays an idealized vision of America's rural and agricultural past.: Is the "idealized vision of America's rural and agricultural past" an aspect of Regionalism and American scene painting, or are these independent statements?
    • The IC includes a quote in this case. Let me know if there is still an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • That would probably be better as a footnote, then, wouldn't it? The note's longer than the on footnote you do have, and I doubt many would think to click through to the IC to see that (I sure didn't). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

———Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Okay, now I'm ready to support (although I'd still like to see something done about that note). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review by Tezero[edit]

The album one's fine, and the one of Norman Rockwell is free. I am, however, concerned about the FUR for File:Freedom from Want.jpg; two categories are simply given "n.a.", while "Purpose of use in article" and "Minimal use" could use a bit of beefing up, the latter category not even ending with a period. I'll watch this FAC; alternately, you can ping me when this has been fixed. Tezero (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

FUR now beefed up.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Image review passes. Source review and one more support still needed. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Prhartcom[edit]

Support. The few issues I found were quickly fixed and I heartily support this article for FA. Below are my comments. As requested, I have struck those comments that have been fixed. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings to you, TonyTheTiger. I have just read the president's speech that inspired this painting as well as the Four Freedoms article, and feel ready to review this article. *I'll start with a complement: "Until then, Freedom from Want was not a commonly understood or accepted universal freedom" is a powerful sentence that really hooks the reader into reading more.

  • "enduring wartime hardship at the time" – Redundant "time" and also redundant "at the time" from earlier in the sentence.

*Which do you like better: The passive "Freedom from Want was published with a corresponding essay" or the active "The Post published Freedom from Want with a corresponding essay" ?

***Great; by the way, I wasn't being sarcastic, sorry if it sounded that way, I meant to sincerely ask is it worth stating the facts in a passive way in order to accentuate the object rather than the subject, as maybe the subject (The Post) is entirely unimportant. It actually could be (e.g., for the first couple of passive sentences still in the lead, the unmentioned object is unimportant so the passive voice is quite worth it.) If, however, the subject is as important as the object, than by all means use the active; your fix is correct. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC) *"rather than those enduring sociopolitical hardships abroad" sounds important, but if it were cut, it would greatly strengthen the sentence's main idea, which is "Bulosan's essay spoke on behalf of those enduring the socioeconomic hardships domestically and it thrust him into prominence". Perhaps convert the cut passage into an introductory phrase (e.g. "Despite ...") which would add counterpoint to that main idea.

*Notice that every main idea presented in the lead is executed in a single sentence, with the exception of the description of Bulosan's essay, which takes two. While I was reading the lead I half-expected that second sentence to be the start of a different topic, then found out it wouldn't be. If you'd like to have that consistency, perhaps an expertly applied conjunction or semicolon and a few cut phrases (e.g. "as part of the Four Freedoms series") will do it. You could combine the solution to the point above with this solution.

    • I don't really understand the point as it relates to the article and the remedy is equally confusing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It looks like you solved it! Each sentence in the lead now sticks to one main idea each. It's a very well-written lead. Prhartcom (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

* "emptiness" = "the themes of Puritan origins of Thanksgiving." Really? I would like to know more as I never considered that, but no reason is given to equate the two. Perhaps only a small hint or reminder could be added?

    • The source is online. If you look at that, you can tell if I am summarizing the source correctly. There is really no further connection in the source though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • You're right; the author assumes we're supposed to know what that means. Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

* "'The last war you ...'" This quote, I assume, is cited in Fischer 2004? I ask because there is no citation after it but there is one in the next sentence. Consider adding a reference footnote directly following the quote, since it's a quote, after all. I think a comma is needed between "war" and "you" (it's okay to punctuate someone's quote).

    • That quote is in half of the books on Rockwell. It is a quote. Above I explained to another reviewer that I believe two comma are missing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Then you can fix them. It may be a quote, but we, as editors, are allowed to make simple punctuation changes (See MOS:QUOTE). My main suggestion was to place another "ref" tag to the source immediately after the quote.
        • I have added [,] in two places.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I changed them to regular commas. It's okay. Our style guide states we are allowed to do that (link above), and I found more than one online example of others doing it. [15] I also added the footnote I asked for; please ensure I did it correctly ("ref name=LaF"). Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

* "Hibbs alleviated Rockwell's thematic concern. He noted ..." Perhaps combine the two sentences, which are on the same topic, with a semicolon. "Noted" could be changed to a more accurate verb, such as "explained" or "reasoned".

* "pressured Rockwell into completing his work soon after warning him that the magazine was soon ..." I think you see the problem, right? A comma is needed in a strategic location (either between "work" and "soon" or between "soon" and "after"; I can't tell if you are using the phrase "soon after ..."). Consider another word for the second "soon" to avoid the redundancy; e.g. instead of "soon going to be", perhaps "about to be".

* "relied on neighbors for advice, critical commentary and their service as his models." Oh dang, you prefer not to use the Oxford comma in a list (which would be: "1, 2, and 3" instead of "1, 2 and 3"). Your choice, but I always use it (because I don't want to imply a relationship between list items "2" and "3").

* "Jim Martin appears in each painting in the series." Really, why? Does the source say? It's obviously an interesting bit of trivia but it leaves us wanting an explanation.

* "Rockwell lived in Stockbridge, Massachusetts ..." Nice to know, but we shouldn't say it; it's just stuck in there next to a detailed examination of the painting's production. We go from the painting directly to the related topic of its eventual home to that topic's related topic of Rockwell's home; of the three, the third is in no way related to the first, which was the main topic of the paragraph. Perhaps there is another, better place for this third fact. The last sentence of a section should should be a nice finish, ideally with some emotional impact (especially in a FA).

    • I have split off the last two sentences into a separate paragraph. The two new paragraphs are relatively stubby, but that is probably the best solution.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • It is better as a separate paragraph, I agree. The new wording could be better, but I won't dwell on this. Prhartcom (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I have reworded the sentence. Feel free to revert or make further changes. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

* Another complement: The entire first two paragraphs and the last three paragraphs of Reactions is wonderfully well-written. I got chills reading how well the painting was received. No issues here.

* "Richard Halpern says ..." since what he says is in contrast to what those dreary, starving Europeans said, perhaps a more accurate verb is needed here (or a "However") to signal to the reader that they are about to read a contrasting position.

* "empty plates and white dishes on white linen ... Rockwell may have been invoking the Puritan origins of the Thanksgiving holiday." There it is again. We just said all this earlier, and not in the summarizing lead. Do you reconcile a good reason for mentioning the same thing in two different paragraphs? It seems odd to me, and until I hear your reason, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't.

    • I have removed it from the earlier section. However, in the reactions section it is natural to have different critics pointing out the same theme.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I like your improvement. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

* "no one appears to be giving thanks in a traditional manner at the Thanksgiving dinner." That is super-important; majorly, incredibly important. Are you American or Canadian, Tony? Even atheists feel the need to give traditional thanks at Thanksgiving over here. If no one is giving thanks at a Thanksgiving meal in a Norman Rockwell painting, that deserves to be highlighted, not mentioned in passing while discussing that guy Jim Martin. Thankfully, you write more about it and you place it at the end of a section, where it gives that strong finish and emotional impact I mentioned above. I just wanted to make sure you knew how important this fact was and to encourage you to emphasize its importance if you can. Thankfully it is a direct quote. Maybe you can even put it in a quotebox.

* "He was sympathetic to the fact that the painting was produced in 1943 ..." The "was produced" indicates passive voice (note the missing subject: Mr. Rockwell) and isn't worth it (since Mr. Rockwell is the pronoun at the beginning of the sentence). (Note: There is plenty of passive voice in this article, but I'm not bringing most of it up because I must admit it is almost all worth it: In each case, it avoids mentioning a less-important subject over a more important object.) How about, "He was sympathetic to the fact that he produced the painting in 1943 ..."

* Oh dear, is the abbreviation The Post or the Post? Now this article has both. Please find out which one is correct and correct the other one. (I'm guessing The Post because "the" is in the actual title, but I'll let you make the call.

* I was expecting to read more about "not a commonly understood or accepted universal freedom" that I enjoyed reading in the lead. Shouldn't the article proper mention it, with in more detail and explanation?

    • I don't have books on Roosevelt checked out from the library right now, but I added what I could.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • From Murray and McCabe? I see it referred to in the article; looks good. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

* The Essay section is in perfect shape! And is a fascinating read!

  • So is the Pop Culture section. It's in great shape.

* Tony, it doesn't appear that you have run the bots from the toolbox to the right; such a basic step; please do so. For example, no image is using the "alt" parameter, which our blind readers depend upon; a comma needed after "Additionally" in "Additionally the OWI ..." and needed after "In addition" in "In addition there is a covered silver serving dish", "All of the people in the picture ..." change to "All the people in the picture ...", redirects include "Thanksgiving Picture" and "The Thanksgiving Picture" but not "A Hallmark Christmas".

    • Technically, alt text is not a requirement for FA---though it's good to recommend, of course. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for keeping me in line; how about just the external reference checking script? It shows several external links have changed and one has rotted; in my humble opinion even a Good article should have all links working at 200 or 0, and should have them all archived too.
        • I only see one bad link and I have fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
          • There were two. The link to was bogus (it was displayed in blue right there on the checklinks output); with no source to reference at all, I'm afraid I have entirely cut its mention in the article (Lilo & Stitch). The checklinks script tells us another URL ("Inside America’s Great Romance With Norman Rockwell") has changed; I replaced the redirected URL with its new one.
          • I wish you would add the "alt" text to the images. Prhartcom (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

* I should check the sources. Is anyone doing that? I'm looking over the References and it you appear to be doing a good job on it. Maybe I can take a look at the online sources later. Very well-done article! I would say good-luck, but you've done pretty well up to this point earning FAs without me wishing you luck! What an honor it was for me to review your work Tony, as well as the article about Norman Rockwell's most famous painting! Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dank I think you chimed in on the wrong discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Dank, I think you mean these were your edits. Since you have indicated you are done, I have removed {{inuse}}.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I left a note this morning about that broken tool on two talk pages ... if the tool is going to stay broken, I'll start giving the link to the diff when I copyedit, as you just did. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
        • The tool seems to be working now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

The Fifth Element[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the 1997 award winning science fiction blockbuster film. I overhauled this article in 2013, initiating a successful nomination for good article status. Having significantly expanded the article again since then, I now believe it meets featured article requirements. This is my first FAC nomination, so I apologise if I have overlooked any issue. Freikorp (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Eric Corbett 20:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Are you certain that Le Cinquième Élément is the correct French title? I was taught that capital letters in French don't take accents, and the title seems to be given as Le Cinquième élément elsewhere.
    • You're right! Changed.
  • The lead has "special forces Major", whereas the Plot section has "major in the special forces". Is it to be major or Major?
    • Changed to 'major'.
  • "... destroys an attacking Earth battleship". What is the battleship attacking? Is it a naval battleship?
    • Clarified that it is a spaceship, and that it was attacking the 'Great Evil'.
  • "The current Mondoshawan contact, priest Vito Cornelius, informs President Lindberg of the history of the Great Evil ...". Who is President Lindberg?
    • Clarified that it is the president of earth.
  • "The Diva is killed ...". Why the Diva? In the previous paragraph she was introduced as "Diva Plavalaguna", implying that Diva was her first name.
    • I've changed all references to the character to her last name, which already appeared once anyway, so now it is consistent.

Eric Corbett 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick image check - Poster image is fine, the file File:Valerian_FifthElement2.jpg is a good use within the article but I would suggest making sure the caption makes reference back to the French work it was inspired by, reflecting some of that in the image rational (perhaps including the ref for that in the ratioanle page). --MASEM (t) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. :)
      • Thank you both for your comments, and thanks for your copyedits Eric. I have now addressed each issue that was brought up. Freikorp (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Support from Mirokado[edit]

I've always enjoyed watching this film, but I must confess that the plot has seemed rather to interrupt the 3D-traffic scenes! Perhaps I will pay more attention after having read this article. I have not noticed any omissions and have only a few comments:

  • I tweaked the article a bit to remove a couple of reported citation problems. While doing that I noticed that there are two citations to Valerian: The New Future Trilogy, which do not contain equivalent information: one has editors, the other has a translator and a series parameter. It is probably better to make them consistent, unless for example only parts of the book were translated.
  • Thanks, i've merged two reference to make them consistent.
  • The citations have a format delimited by full stops and ending with a full stop. The short-form references should also end with a full stop for consistency: "Hayward, p. 91." etc.
  • Done.
  • Plot: Please see WP:PLOTPRESENT: "As key characters are introduced in the plot of a film or play with a known cast, list the actors' names in parentheses after them, Character (Actor), where applicable." This is done in the lead for Willis and Jovovich, but not in the plot for the other characters. To make the plot section self-sufficient I would do it for those two as well, particularly as Jovovich' character is not named in the lead.
  • Done.
  • I was a bit surprised that Besson's book The Story of the Fifth Element: The Adventure and Discovery of a Film is only "further reading". Is it too much a primary source to be acceptable as a reference? Does it have nothing to add to coverage of the subject?

--Mirokado (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

  • The book was listed in the bibliography when I found the article, though it was not used anywhere as an inline citation, so I moved it to 'Further reading'. I considered buying the book to use it as a reference, as i'm sure it could add to the subject, however, it is a collector's item and out of print. The cheapest I could find a second hand copy on was $300 [16], a tad more than what i'm willing to spend on my hobby of editing wikipedia. Would it be more appropriate to move it back to the bibliography, even though it is not used as an inline citation? Should we delete it due to it looking out of place? Or do you think given the circumstances it can work where it is? Thanks for your comments Mirakado. Freikorp (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Har, I didn't check availability before commenting! It's better to leave it as it is so the referencing in the article is clear. --Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. Just checking the references again I noticed a few other minor issues, then I can support this article. --Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Current refs 10, 18, 60, 68, 73, 97: citations add outer double quotes, so inner quotes in the title need to be single
  • Current ref 27: We normally transform titles to title case rather than retaining all-caps words
  • Current refs 62, 69, 71, 81: (magazine) seems redundant here, three times a wl disambiguator so a pipe would be necessary, once not linked, in that case "Discover Magazine" is how they refer to themselves if clarification is needed.

--Mirokado (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Done, done and done :). Thanks again for your observations. Freikorp (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    You are welcome. Supporting now. --Mirokado (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional comments from Eric Corbett

  • "... the film's central plot involves the survival of planet Earth, which becomes the duty of Korben Dallas". The survival of Earth can't really be a duty. Responsibility?
    • Changed to responsibility.
  • "Learning of her significance, Dallas must join forces with her to recover four mystical stones essential to defending Earth from an impending attack." I'd drop "learning of her significance", as it just seems to dangle there. Why must Dallas join forces with her?
    • I suppose he doesn't have to save the planet, he just chooses to. Both 'learning of her significance' and 'must' have been removed.
  • If the Mondoshawans collected the five elements from Earth in 1914, promising to return them in time to defeat the Great Evil, and didn't return until 2263, then how did the stones end up in the possession of Diva Plavalaguna?
    • Clarified.
  • "... representing the four classical elements, and a sarcophagus containing a Fifth Element ... which combines the power of the other four elements into a Divine Light capable of defeating the evil. The Mondoshawans promise their contact, a priest, that they will return with the Elements in time to stop the Great Evil". The capitalisation seems inconsistent there. Why is Fifth Element capitalised but four elements isn't? And why is Elements capitalised in the final sentence? Added to which we have "the leitmotif that first appears when professor Pacoli mentions the fifth element" in the Soundtrack section. Don't the stones represent the elements anyway, rather than being the elements? So how could the Mondoshawans return the elements?
    • Well spotted. Changed to lower case for consistency, and clarified that they are returning the element stones.
  • "... a humanoid woman known as "Leeloo" (Milla Jovovich), who has been described as 'perfect'". Described by whom as perfect?
    • Good point. By several people at various times, but easier to just remove it than specify one of them I think.
  • "Cornelius instructs David to prepare the temple and stows away on the same space plane as Dallas". What temple? Why is Dallas on a space plane when we've just been told that he was going on a cruise?
    • Clarified it is the temple from the beginning of the film, and that the space flight is going to the cruise ship.
  • "The film has been cited as a classical narrative ...". A film isn't a narrative.
    • Changed to 'story'.
  • "The classical narrative, however, is under threat ...". How can a narrative be under threat?
    • Not sure how that ended up there, changed to what I think I meant to say in the first place.
  • "Despite the flaws cited in the world of The Fifth Element ...". The flaws aren't being cited. Perhaps something like "Despite the evident flaws in the world of The Fifth Element ..."?
    • Changed.
  • "The film is said to problematise the relationship between technology and man." Is problematise a real word? What does it mean?
    • Probematize at Oxford dictionaries: [17]. See also Problematization. I can choose a synonym if you like, I don't feel one way or another about the word.

Eric Corbett 12:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments again. I hope i've now addressed each issue. Freikorp (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, reluctantly, as I think the content is fine. But there are just too many problems with the prose for me to support this article, and I don't have the time to address them all. Eric Corbett 20:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely understand the lack of time, but if I don't know what's wrong with the prose I can't very well fix it; I addressed everything you brought up. I guess i'll wait for someone else to comment on it. Thanks anyway, and thanks for the copyedits you did. Freikorp (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • I did more editing on this one than usual. I'm trying not to reflect personal preferences, but to follow something like consensus. You're welcome to revert, and if you can reword in your own style, that's even better.
  • "the most financially successful French film until the release of The Intouchables in 2011."; "It went on to become the most profitable French film made to that point,[1] a record it held for 16 years until the release of The Intouchables in 2011. As of 2011 it was still considered to be France's most successful exported film.": I believe Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis was more financially successful by some measures, so some of this wording may need tweaking.
    • Is it acceptable to add financial information on this film even if this information contradicts the references I have, and even if I cannot find a reference that links these two films?
      • If one source says that Lucy's lemonade costs $1 and a separate source says that Linus's lemonade costs $2, it's not original research for you to say that Linus's costs more than Lucy's, as long as you cite both sources. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The film is also said to explore", etc.: I'm not taking a position on the important question of how specific you should be in the text in describing who's saying what, at least in broad strokes.
    • I've attribute all the opinions from the book The Films of Luc Besson to said book. Hopefully this addresses a large part of this concern.
  • "which were then read as three-dimensional from the viewpoint of the camera": ?
    • Upon reading over that, and its original source, i'm not entirely sure what it means either. Removed.
  • "$17 million", "US$263 million": MOS, and WP:$ in MOSNUM, say that you can go with or without "US" at the first occurrence (for this article, I think), but just use "$" after that.
    • Done.
  • "Exotic styles are combined with more conventional scoring techniques in the leitmotif that first appears when professor Pacoli mentions the fifth element, the militaristic snares as the warship prepares to attack the dark planet, and the Mahlerian funereal piece heard when Leeloo learns about war.": Some of that is mine. I wasn't sure of your meaning; you may want to delete the "exotic styles" part.
    • Offline source reads: "The score ... relies even more heavily on orchestral textures and exotic influences, but blends Serra's characteristic riff and song-form cues with more conventional scoring techniques. ... as the Professor mentions the Fifth Element we have a hint of the first appearance of a leitmotiv in Serra's work, another technique borrowed from conventional film-scoring. ... Other conventional gestures include the militaristic rattle of snares that develop into a march as the warship prepares to destroy the dark planet and is consumed by it, and the tension-inducing invert pedal stinger as Leeloo growls at Monroe through the glass of her regeneration tube. We hear Mahlerian, funeral timpani as Leeloo learns about war." Hopefully that will make my intended meaning clear; any suggestions for rewording?
      • Thanks, I guessed wrong yesterday. I've just fixed it.
  • "100,000 square feet": I wasn't looking closely at measurements; this one, at least, needs a convert template.
    • Done.
  • Support on prose, with those caveats, per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Eric's edits (above) helped me get through the tough "Themes" section. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your copy edits Dank; I know my copy-editing skills are a weaker point in my editing. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns. Freikorp (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Happy to help. I made a few tweaks; everything looks good. You may want to do something with Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis, as mentioned above. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alsos Mission[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This article was extremely popular when it appeared on the front page as a DYK. I think it will prove equally popular as a TFA. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. The Germany subsection seems a bit long, but I don't really know how you'd subdivide it. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotcheck not done

  • "The cellar itself was not blown up, because this would have meant the destruction of the Church and Castle located above the cellar." - source?
    • Added by a German Wikipedian. Removed until I find a source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Hinsley et al: British Intelligence is a title, not a series; what is current presented as the title is the volume name
  • Mahoney: don't need spaces around dash in dates, don't need both "thesis" and "dissertation", and how does this meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I found Mahoney on the shelf at the ADFA library. It was academically reviewed and is widely cited in the literature. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Here are my copyedits. Good work. --John (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your edits and your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)[edit]

Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about one of the main tributaries of the Susquehanna River in Columbia County, Pennsylvania. It started out as a two-sentence stub and has been steadily improving since 2012. After becoming a GA in early 2013, it failed FAC twice in mid-2013 and early 2014, mostly due to prose concerns. By the third FAC in May, this article was getting close to the standards (mainly due to work by the GOCE), but the prose still required more work. Now, I think that the prose finally meets the prose standards for FA. I am also certain that the other standards are met, as no major issues with these have been raised in recent FACs. Hopefully, it'll pass this time. --Jakob (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Image review
  • Just the one question, really. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492: Not sure if there is a base map or not. Kmusser would know, as he created/uploaded it. --Jakob (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There is not a base map, I created that map specifically for this article. Sources for the individual data elements of the map are on the image page. Kmusser (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright, then the images look fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec: Hello, Jakob -- Your article looked interesting, so I decided to read it and see if I could help. It is well written for the most part. I just made a few minor copy-edits to correct spelling and punctuation, and add a few missing words. I rearranged the words in a few sentences to make them more concise and to improve sentence flow. There are just a few issues I'd like to mention here:

1) The last sentence in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Oxbow lake is:

"Japanese knotweed has been seen near Interstate 80 on the northern edges of the Turkey Hill Oxbow"

and the last sentence in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Biology is:

"There are populations of Japanese knotweed, an invasive plant, along the creek and its tributaries south of Pennsylvania Route 118".

I'm pointing this out just in case this might be a duplication of information. If not, that's fine.

2) In the second paragraph in the section Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Geology is the following sentence:

"There are numerous deposits of iron ore and limestone in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley and also some deposits of marble along it".

The pronoun "it" at the end of the sentence is ambiguous. It could refer to "valley", but perhaps also to "creek". If it means "Fishing Creek valley", then I suggest the following re-wording, which will eliminate any ambiguity:

"There are numerous deposits of iron ore and limestone, as well as some deposits of marble, in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley."
@Jakec: (Did you see this?) You didn't like this wording? If you don't like "as well as", then at least remove "also" and just use "and". "Also" and "and" are too close in meaning to use both.
If there is no real reason to separate marble from iron ore and limestone, why not just make it a list of three?
"There are numerous deposits of iron ore, limestone and marble in the lower sections of the Fishing Creek valley".
It's more concise than the other versions. CorinneSD (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

3) The second and third sentences in Fishing Creek (North Branch Susquehanna River)#Recreation are:

"There are other tracts of public property along the creek, one of which, called the Power Dam, is 2 miles (3.2 km) upstream of Benton. It covers 19 acres (7.7 ha) and stretches for 2900 feet (880 meters) of Fishing Creek, and features the remains of a concrete dam."

Usually, when one uses the verb "features", what usually follows is an interesting or attractive highlight. "The remains of a concrete dam" does not conjure up an image of something attractive. I suppose it could be interesting, though. If you're happy with it, that's fine. It's just an unusual use of the verb. (There is another example with the same construction a few sentences below this.)

4) In the second-to-last paragraph of the article is the following sentence:

"The hiking trail Waterfall Wonderland: Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls is described as "a place of almost mystical beauty" by Jeff Mitchell in his book Hiking the Endless Mountains: Exploring the Wilderness of Northeastern Pennsylvania".
There is something that is not clear in this sentence. I suppose "Water Wonderland" is the name of the hiking trail.

However, what follows, a colon (:) and "Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls" is described as..." does not make sense. Perhaps there are some words missing following "Waterfall Wonderland". Perhaps it should read,

"The hiking trail Waterfall Wonderland, which affords views of Big, Twin, Lewis, and Sullivan Falls, is described as..." CorinneSD (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: Thanks for the comments.
  1. It's not duplication. PA 118 is near the source and the oxbow is near the mouth.
  2. I've changed the wording.
  3. Changed features to contains.
  4. I replaced that sentence with your suggested sentence.
--Jakob (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: I've added in your suggested sentence about iron ore, limestone, and marble. --Jakob (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Jakob I saw your edits. I have just learned from another editor with whom I have been working on another article that it is customary for the original poster to strike through comments raising issues which the poster feels have been resolved, so I've done that, above. The article looks good now. CorinneSD (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • Consistency needed: BC, BCE. If you go with BCE, link it at first occurrence; most readers aren't familiar with it (though they can guess what it means from context).
  • Our Fishing Creek Confederacy article talks about "a thousand" soldiers in the text, though it says "1000" in the lead. That makes sense; I'm guessing they didn't know the precise number, and "a thousand" is more appropriate when the number isn't exact, so I went with that.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose pending referencing improvements. A number of the references are incomplete. GBooks or other web links are not an adequate substitute for complete citations. WP:CITEHOW includes some guidance if needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Could you be more specific please? I cannot identify anything that could be objectionable in anything but the Google Books links. If you want publishers added to the GBooks links, I can probably do that tomorrow. If it's page numbers you're after, I don't think it can be done. Sometimes 20 or 30 separate pages are cited. It would be difficult to track them all down and the list would look somewhat ugly. --Jakob (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you need both of those things. There are methods to deal with sources cited multiple times with different pages - {{rp}}, {{sfn}}, etc. Web sources also need publishers and/or publications as applicable. More broadly, there is a general lack of consistency in the presentation of sources. For that reason, it's difficult to be too specific, as I can't tell what the intended style is. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: There is not "a general lack of consistency". Every citation uses the exact same template and all of them have the same information in the same order: an author (if one is given), a publisher (if one is given), a url (if online), a title, a date (if given), and an accessdate. --Jakob (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid that's not the case. For example, FN1 uses a template from the {{cite}} family, but then FN3 uses a {{citation}} template - these are two different classes of citation templates and produce different outputs. Similarly, the publication linked to in FN3 does have a publisher indicated, but the citation itself does not include one. These are examples only, but in my view problems with citations are pervasive here. And of course, there is the lack of page numbers, which leads to a lack of precision in citation, contrary to WP:V. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that except in a few cases. Anyway, all the references use {{citation}} now as far as I can tell. I'll get to the page numbers later tonight or tomorrow, but it only makes sense to add them to Google Books and PDFs since conventional websites don't really have numbered pages. --Jakob (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fanny Bullock Workman[edit]

Nominator(s): Adam Cuerden (talk), Figureskatingfan (Christine), and Wadewitz, 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Fanny Bullock Workman, mountaineer, rock climber, suffragette, and feminist. It was one of the last articles being worked on by Adrianne Wadewitz before her untimely death, and between her excellent work and those of us wishing to finish it, we'd like to raise this up in her memory.

Okay, so what have I done? Well, I've reviewed it, fixed up some copyediting, checked and improved the images - probably will try to improve them a bit more through restoration and such, but that's surely not a requirement before nominating here - and her books are more than amply covered by my local library. So, let's do this! Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fanny_bullock_workman_d_1922.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from EddieHugh

  • Something to get out of the way early on: there are too many quotations that are unattributed and that could be paraphrased. e.g., in Move to Europe and cycling tours, "the role of "devoted mother" and instead became an "adventurer and author"" (can be paraphrased; if not, attribute them); "lyrical descriptions"; "The Workman's works are colonialist in that they describe the people they meet and observe as "at best as exotic or unusual, at worst as primitive or even subhuman"" (be clear about who wrote that); "commonplace" (surely this can be reworded... it's only one word).
  • I'm wary of what appear to be editorial summaries. e.g., "Popular reviewers, on the other hand, enjoyed the book. One reviewer in The Standard, wrote "We have no hesitation in saying that Dr. and Mrs. Workman have written one of the most remarkable books of travel of recent years."[16]" If No. 16 is the source of that first, summarizing, sentence, then add 16 explicitly. If it's not, then the first sentence needs a different source or to be cut. Another example: "Their rivalry demonstrated that women could climb in the remotest and most difficult terrain of the world, and that they were equal to male mountaineers" (needs a direct source, as it's hard for the reader to judge if this is the writer's synthesis or has been asserted explicitly by others).
I went through and sourced the quotes some more and did some paraphrasing, as per your request, which I believe will do away with the editorializing, even though I think that Wadewitz's method follows how quotes are handled in some academic literature. When Adam gets a hold of the sources, he can check for accuracy.
  • Small things: "the 45 miles (72 km)-long" (the hyphen is needed, but "miles" must be singular; there are several examples); multiple sources together should be in numerical order; use same date formatting throughout (e.g., infobox dob and dod differ); either abbreviate months or don't (don't is preferable – MOS:MONTH). EddieHugh (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed the above, which was due to use of the convert template. I'm pretty sure I got them all; perhaps someone can go behing me and catch what I've missed or correct any errors.
Thank you for your comments; My sources are at the library, but I'll fix what I can without them tonight, and try to fix the library ones within a day or two (presuming Christine doesn't get to them first). Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I add my thanks for your comments; they'll make for a stronger article. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

SupportComments from Hamiltonstone. A worthy article aabout an important figure, and glad to see Adrienne's work continuing.

  • There was some pretty dire repetition early in the prose - sentences using the same word twice etc. I've tried to iron some out, and it got better as i went through.
  • "After his death, according to Pauly, Workman, using the bicycle to achieve it, she ..." very clunky. Suggest you get rid of the reference to the bicycle altogether here, and just have "After his death, according to Pauly, Workman...", and then introduce cycling early in the following para.
The reason for the clunkiness is to demonstrate the importance of bicycles, which provided women with more freedom of movement, in the feminist movement. That's why I think that it should remain where it is. I agree with you that it's clunky language, so I did this: "After his death, according to Pauly, Workman, through her bicycle tours..."
  • They really only carried 20lbs of luggage each? Are we certain we have the source correct on this? That is staggeringly light, unless they had porter-cyclists behind them!!
This is from the Pauly source, which I don't have access to. Adam needs to consult the source to be sure, but I'm inclined to WP:AGF that Wadewitz was accurate.
  • Pinnacle peak section - something needs to be done about the repetition of the peak being her altitude record - it is described para one and then set out again at the start of para 2.
I think the reason it's described in this way is because the first para talks about how she did it and the second one talks about how she proved that she had done it; i.e., defending that she broke the record. Maybe if you're more specific about what you want changed, I can follow your suggestion here.
I think I;ve fixed it. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I didn't get past the pinnacle peak section.
Ha! Good one! ;)

May get back some time. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, eagerly anticipating more. And thanks for your copy-editing. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, gone through to the end, and have fixed the other things I found. I think I'm done.
  • I took a brief look at the sources and the formatting looked sound. Any particular reason there are lots of &ndash; rather than just straight endashes?

Thanks for your efforts to continue the work of one of my favourite wikipedians. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

HTML codes for ndashes are common amongst people who either often write HTML off Wikipedia, or who started editing Wikipedia before the character insert tools got added to the edit interface. &ndash; is preferred in HTML, I believe, but I also believe the Wikicode can do that HTML conversion for you. That said, it's easier for an editor in the fixed-width font of the edit window to tell hyphens from en- and em-dashes if the HTML is used, which likely makes it a bit easier to proofread. In short, no strong reason to do it, but no reason to change it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks Adam. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "The Workmans left their children with nurses while they took long trips and even missed their daughter's wedding in 1912 while exploring in the Karakoram. In 1893, Siegfried died from a combination of influenza and pneumonia. After his death, according to Pauly, Workman, through her bicycle tours, "aggressively pursued an alternative identity, one that liberated her from the conventional responsibilities of wife and mother and allowed for her interests and ambitions".": Would it work to put the first sentence (1912) after the other sentences (1893)?
This is how I dealt with this: "The Workmans left their children with nurses while they took long trips.[14] In 1893, Siegfried died from a combination of influenza and pneumonia. After his death, according to Pauly, Workman, through her bicycle tours, "aggressively pursued an alternative identity, one that liberated her from the conventional responsibilities of wife and mother and allowed for her interests and ambitions".[15] They missed their daughter's wedding in 1912 while exploring in the Karakoram.[14]"
  • "The books describe the people, art, and architecture of the areas through which the couple journeyed; they were aware of contributing to the genre of travel writing, commenting on other writers in their own works.": I wasn't sure of the exact meaning. I went with "The books describe the people, art, and architecture of the areas through which the couple journeyed and comment on other writers' similar works, contributing to the genre of travel writing." Correct that if it's wrong, please.
I think your version isn't correct (plus, it's grammatically incorrect); to fix it, I changed the first 2 sentences in the paragraph: "Together, the Workmans explored the world and co-wrote eight travel books, which describe the people, art, and architecture of the areas in which they journeyed. The Workmans were aware of their contribution to the genre of travel writing as they commented on other writers in their own works."
Everything looks good; thanks for the review. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Sure thing. The changes look good. I was very sorry to hear about Adrianne ... she was quite kind to me when I needed it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. I'll add notes here as I go through the article; it may take me a day or so.

  • Why is "Himalaya" rather than the more usual "Himalayas" used?
    • It's technically more correct - "Himalaya" is already plural. Though Workman uses "Himalayas", so it's debateable Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      OK. Looking around on the web, it appears a shift is underway towards "Himalaya"; it's not something I was aware of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest adding an "American English" template; I was about to change "The couple was ..." to "The couple were ..." but caught myself.
  • I think it would be good to mention a couple of dates in the lead; by the time they reach 23,000 feet I have no idea within 20 years of when that might have happened. Perhaps the year of their marriage, and the year they reached that altitude?
  • There are too many direct quotes, I feel. I don't see any reason why some of these should be preserved as quotes, rather than reformulated. There are dozens of them. I can see the value of some, but for example is there any reason to preserve "contributed significantly to the sport's evolution from strenuous recreation into serious, regulated competition" in the author's original words?
I went through (a couple of days ago; I was out of town over the weekend, so it was all I had time to do) the quotes and tried to paraphrase as much as I could. It's likely I could've done more, but I think that what I done goes far in fulfilling this request. Let me know if you think that I need to do more.
That's certainly better. (I cleaned up a couple of stray quotes left over.) I'd remove more quotes than you did, but to some extent it's a matter of taste. There are one or two I really don't see the value of, though; could you rephrase the following, which seem low value to me: "slow and uncooperative" (perhaps "difficult to work with"?), "triumph", "moved to establish themselves as the foremost authorities on thin air", "was greatly interested in the higher education of women and in their advancement to an equality with men in social, literary, scientific, and political fields" (how about "...and Bryn Mawr; the bequests were demonstrative of her long-lasting interest in the advancement of women's rights, and her belief that they were the equals of men", or something similar?), and "modern equipment coupled with team climbing enhanced the success and reduced the risk of such ventures"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Would you have any objection to me attempting some further rephrasing myself? I don't have access to most of the sources, but I could probably do a couple, and see what you think. I did see your note above about Adrianne's approach mirroring academic usage, but I think encyclopedic writing is different. I have to say the quotes are the only thing that are preventing me from supporting at this point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with that at all, go for it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, at times they are aware of their own biases, demonstrating that the people they encounter see them in a similar light": I don't quite follow this. Do you mean that the people they encounter saw the Workmans as exotic, just as the Workmans saw them as exotic? If so, the phrasing doesn't work -- being aware of their biases doesn't demonstrate that the people they encounter saw them in a certain way. Perhaps "However, at times they make it clear that the people they encounter see them in a similar light, demonstrating that they were sometimes aware of their own biases".
Changed as per your request.
  • "spent more time seeking out ancient history": shouldn't this be something like "spent more time seeking out ancient historical sites"?
Actually, the context doesn't support your interpretation. The Workmans wanted to learn about ancient texts and their background, so they were more interested in history than meeting contemporary people in the areas. I agree that it was unclear, though, so I exchanged "seeking out" with "learning about", so it now reads, "They were eager to learn about the culture that had produced these epics and spent more time learning about ancient history than interacting with living people."
  • There are two consecutive paragraphs that begin "After their first trip to the Himalaya".
I changed the first paragraph to: "After travelling to the Himalaya the first time..."
  • I think the section breaks are not ideally placed. Currently you have "Move to Europe and cycling tours" and then "Mountaineering in the Himalaya" as consecutive top level sections, but the second of these actually continues a narrative begun in the middle of the first section. I think it would be better to have a section break before the start of the entire 1897-1900 trip. You could treat the mountaineering in the Himalayas during that trip as a subsection, with another section for the later similar exploits. With the current structure it feels odd to read "After their first trip to the Himalaya" at the start of a new section, and realize we're not moving forward in time, we're talking about part of the trip discussed above.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Since I don't want to follow your instructions incorrectly, would you mind making the changes you suggest? If we don't like them, we can revert them back and go from there.
OK, done -- see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm good with your changes, thanks for making them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The mention of the Siegfriedhorn doesn't say, as Plint does, that the name is no longer in use for that peak; I think that should be mentioned. It would be even better to give the current name of the mountain, but I doubt it's possible to figure out which it is.
  • Similarly, it would be nice to give the modern name of Mount Bullock Workman, if it can be determined. I see that Fallen Giants refers to it as a moderate peak; should it really be listed in the infobox as a notable ascent -- particularly if it can't be currently identified?
I added a note stating that Pauly called them "long forgotten" names. I think this satisfies what you ask. I'd like to keep Mt. Bullock Workman in the infobox because it was notable at the time.
I tweaked the note a bit; revert if you wish. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "After their 1908 trip, the couple stopped exploring": the 1908 trip appears to have lasted until 1912, according to the account above, so it would be a bit less confusing for the reader if this were referred to as the "1908-1912" trip, I think.
  • Is the nature of her final illness given in the sources? If so, I think it should be noted in the article.
I dunno. I don't have access to the sources in question, so I'll leave it to Adam to find out.
  • "In her writings, Workman describes herself" and "She demonstrates that women are strong enough..." -- should be "described" and "demonstrated", I would think -- you don't use the present tense in the surrounding text.
  • "Ultimately, the Workmans were some of the first mountaineers to grasp that ...": why "ultimately"?
  • A search of finds a sentence reviewing what appears to be a piece of fiction she wrote in 1885, published in the April and May issues of New England Magazine. The article doesn't mention that she published fiction; if this can be sourced, I think it would be worth mentioning.
I have a subscription to and I wasn't able to find the review you're talking about. Could you provide a more specific citation, please?
Sure: here is a clipping of it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC) -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, for the clipping. Added info as per your request. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley Three minor points on orthography. Running the article through the spell-check with the AmEng setting switched on, I find it suggests "buffeted" for "buffetted" and "submited" for "submitted", and boggles, as do I, at "Club Alpin Francais" without a cédille. As to the first and second, above, I don't know if Microsoft's US spell-check is reliable ("submited" looks odd to me) but I just mention the matter for consideration. – Tim riley talk 13:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe the spelling use is correct. To be honest, I'd trust Adrianne more than MS. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Another point of spelling. One can argue it variously – as Fowler puts it, "my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education and someone else's ignorance" – but it does seem perverse that the blue link reads "Himalaya" when the WP article to which it links has as its title the familiar "Himalayas". I believe the former is more purist, but do we want to get into "these data" territory, cf insisting that "bimbo" is male, the plural of cello is "celli" and "gild the lily" should be "paint the lily". All perfectly true from the purist point of view, but such pedantry makes Wikipedia look a bit out of touch, me judice. – Tim riley talk 23:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


August is a bit of a busy month; I apologise if I'm slow in responding to issues during this period, but will get to all responses ASAP. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Squall Leonhart[edit]

Nominator(s): Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fictional protaganist of the game Final Fantasy VIII created by Squaresoft, now Square Enix, in 1999 for the Sony Playstation. All references are working, the article has been Copy-edited and Peer reviewed. It was given GA status in 2006. I believe that since then sufficient improvement has been made to bring it up to FA status. Bailo26 19:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I can't see any glaring issues. The two archived references check out, the grammar seems okay. I am a little concerned about including the character's height: other featured character articles don't seem to have that included. It seems more like something the dedicated FF Wiki would carry. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I indeed think that there is no reason to list his height as it seems like a bit of useless trivia that is indeed better suited elsewhere. The issue that I have found is in the story section. It might have a few too many cites. Especially in the case of the double cites that do not seem all the necessary when one cite or none would be fine. So after some minor copy editing I think this article would be read. NathanWubs (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I have removed some of the citations from the article. I also removed his height. Bailo26 20:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the removal of his height, I argue that since his height is noted in some video game books concerning him, including ones focusing on his character creation, and has been debated on the article talk page, we should keep it noted in the article. Judging by that debate on the talk page, someone will re-add his height if we don't leave it in, and having that sourced addition of his height in the article is better than someone coming along and adding an unsourced addition of it. Yes, we could revert that person, but then that might lead to another talk page debate about his height. We can also look to the Wikipedia articles of other Final Fantasy characters and see how common it is to include height information; for example, in WP:Good article Cloud Strife, Cloud's height is noted, but height is not noted in the WP:Good article Aerith Gainsborough (even though her height is noted in video game books). Flyer22 (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
After reading through the talk pages more thoroughly and reading Flyer his point my opinion on it has changed. Its better to keep it in to prevent later edit warring and to have it unsourced. Kudos on your clean up job with the citations. The article in my opinion looks a lot better now. I would now vote support but by wikipedia's guidelines, this being my first review and all I will just keep it to comments. NathanWubs (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for reconsidering, NathanWubs. I'm female, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
My apologizes for that Flyer22. Also apologizes in advance as I might forget that detail in the future. NathanWubs (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Height has been re-added. Bailo26 23:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dank[edit]

  • "On the Ragnarok late in the game,": ?
  • "while his comrades are pulled back from time compression into their places in the timeline": ?
  • "Squall takes the name Leon because "Squall" was shamed for not protecting those he loved from the Heartless when his home world (the Radiant Garden) was consumed by darkness": Are we talking about two people named "Squall"? If not, why not say "Squall takes the name Leon as an alias, because he was shamed ..."?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

All Issues dealt with.

  • Clarified Ragnarok as an airship
  • Removed the reference to time compression as it is a very hard concept to explain.
  • Corrected the Leon sentence as suggested.

Bailo26 12:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

    • Thanks. What does "while his comrades are pulled back into their places in the timeline" mean? - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding that bit, from what I remember of the game, Ultimecia has power to influence time, which she uses against her enemies and for other purposes; if that is not already made clear in the plot information, it should be; we shouldn't simply remove all mention of this power aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I just Googled her; see this Wikia entry about her character. Flyer22 (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
How about: "After defeating Ultimecia, the time and space that she absorbed to begins to return to normal, pulling Squalls comrades back into their places in the timeline, while Squall...". This way we are still keeping the power mentioned. Bailo26 13:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Good suggestion; that works for me. Flyer22 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Done! Bailo26 13:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyedited to "After Ultimecia is defeated, the time and space that she absorbed to begins to return to normal, pulling Squall's ...". Okay, that's all my points, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, something I forgot! You should archive the 1Up references. The site isn't working properly anymore. Conversation on the subject here. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Done, Thanks for pointing that out! Bailo26 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question, why is the Dissidea storyline not included and the brief Kingdom Hearts storyline not even outlined? Missing Theatrhythm Final Fantasy: Curtain Call and Pictlogica Final Fantasy mentions from appearances. Final Fantasy Trading Card Game should be worth a mention at least.... Also, Final Fantasy Airborne Brigade and 'Final Fantasy Record Keeper and Final Fantasy Artniks while you are doing those. While a premium character, he does exist in 'Final Fantasy All the Bravest. Should be easy to get "comprehensive" requirement, right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, okay, I see your point. I have added Curtain call and All the Bravest and Pictlogica although i am struggling to find references for the latter two even though i know he's in there. I feel that Leon's storyline is outlined within the paragraph. Record Keeper, Artniks and Airborne Brigade i am not familiar with so will have to do a bit of research before i can update further. Bailo26 19:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Source Review

In my source reviews I do both citation formatting problems and validating that all sources are RSs. Will return to add on spot-checks in a little bit. Addition: did eight or so spotchecks (plus a few game quotes) and they all came back clean.

  • ref 1 - the publisher is Square Enix, not
  • ref 3 - if an author is not stated, do not put the author as "staff", just leave it blank
  • ref 5 - can you justify why FlareGamer is an RS?
  • refs 4-9 - Square Enix has never had a dash in the name
  • ref 7, all quotes- if you want to go with Square Co. instead of just Square, you need the period after Co.- it's short for company
  • ref 22 - the publisher should just be RPGamer; it's not like we say the publisher is, after all
  • ref 29 - the title is not Kingdom Hearts (at, it's just Kingdom Hearts
  • General - you need to be consistent in what you link in references- I thought you were just not linking anything, but around here you start linking some games and publishers. Either all publishers/games should be linked, only their first occurrence, or nothing.
  • ref 31 - date is formatted differently than other refs
  • ref 32 - date is formatted off, and can you justify why 91.8 The Fan is an RS?
  • ref 33 - date
  • ref 34 - date
  • ref 35 - it's GameSpot, not Gamespot, and you shouldn't have it italicized as a work if you don't provide a publisher, which you haven't done for other online sources
  • ref 38 - GamesRadar is one word, and date
  • refs 39-41 - date
  • ref 40 - author is provided for this article (Ishaan)
  • ref 41 - don't italicize without a publisher
  • ref 43 - author name style is off, and suddenly you give the publisher for an online source when you haven't been before- pick one
  • refs 44, 45, 47 - publish date is provided for these sources
  • ref 50 - archive date and publisher inconsistencies
  • ref 51 - can you justify why PSXextreme is an RS?
  • ref 56 - date format, and can you justify why Cheat Code Central is an RS?
  • ref 57 - you don't need "staff", and Edge is a magazine (with a website) so it should be italicized
  • ref 58 - publisher inconsistency
  • ref 59 - publisher not given
  • ref 60 - publish date given in source
--PresN 19:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
PresN, regarding your questions for what are WP:Reliable video game sources, it would help if you would explain why you don't think they count, or possibly don't count, as WP:Reliable video game sources. Going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, I see that they have a guideline on this matter: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Funnily enough, having written 11 video game-related FAs, I do know about WP:VG/RS. It's not the job of a source reviewer to justify why they are unsure a site is an RS- if they are, it should be easy enough for the nominator to prove. It's their job to question things that seem off. To be specific though: FlareGamer appears to be a blog that gives no indication that they fact-check or that the writers themselves are notable; 91.8 The Fan appears to be a online fan radio station; PSXextreme appears to be notable now that I look at it but wasn't listed at VG/RS; Cheat Code Central is a cheat site, not a professional news/reviews site, so I don't know why their opinion about a game matters at all. --PresN 19:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
PresN, if you were feeling defensive, there was no need to be. I did have a peep at your contribution history and user page before asking you about why you feel the sources are unreliable. As you no doubt know, it's common in WP:Good article reviews or WP:Featured article reviews for those involved with the review process to ask each other questions so that they can better understand matters. Reviewers are queried and/or challenged on matters as well, of course. I'm glad that you struck PSXextreme off the list, considering that I'm familiar with that magazine (have not read one of them in years, though) and was wondering how it might not quality as WP:Reliable. As for the rest, thanks for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The Love Club EP[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) and Adabow (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about New Zealand singer Lorde's debut major release, The Love Club EP. The EP revealed Lorde's fear and nervousness of becoming a new artist. For the development of the article, I have found as many sources as I could, so I think that this article is fully comprehensive now. I would appreciate any comments/suggestions to help improve the article. Thanks, Simon (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WonderBoy1998[edit]

  • Looks great. Some points- Okay now I think this article needs some work. No worries, everything can easily be bettered.
  • "Lorde admitted that she was inspired by hip hop music-influenced music, such as Lana Del Rey" - consider changing "hip hop music-influenced music" to "hip hop music-influenced artists" to avoid repetition of "music." Using "artist" will also fit better with Lana Del Rey. In fact, even the "music" in "hip hop music-influenced" is not needed. I'd change it to "hip hop-influenced"
  • "It features Lorde's "smoky" vocal delivery" - awkward wording. Consider changing to "Lorde's vocal delivery on the album was described as "smoky" by Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail. Another critic, Chris Schulz of The New Zealand Herald, commented that her voice "seems to come from someone twice her age.""
"According to Nick Ward from The Nelson Mail, Lorde's vocals on the EP are "smoky"" - These kinds of sentences look okay on good articles. For a featured article, you're gonna have to come up with a better, more refined sentence.
  • "Jim Pinckney from New Zealand Listener" - Try adding some variation. Perhaps "New Zealand Listener critic Jim Pinckney"
  • " are structure[d is missing] in a short story manner" - Consider changing to "are structured in the manner of a short story" or "opined that the structure of the songs is similar to that of a short story." Also don't use "Lorde's songs"
  • More soon --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 07:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Gee, thanks! I have addressed all of your concerns. Simon (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The "short story" issue has not been addressed. Also see above for a new comment on the "smoky" voice thing. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • How does it look now? Simon (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes looking good --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "it discusses Lorde feigning confidence" - the "discusses" just doesn't fit well, in my opinion.
  • "the two tracks" - you can remove "the"
  • "the former draws from" - draws what?
  • " Kanye West'" →" Kanye West's"
  • "high life" seems to have been directly borrowed from the Guardian. You can easily replace it with something life "criticize the glamorous lifestyle of the rich"
  • "The EP's title track" → The title track of the EP (try to avoid using apostrophes with nouns that are not proper nouns)
  • There you go. Best, Simon (talk) 09:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lyrically, the EP discusses "nervousness [Lorde] might expect for an artist conducting her first print interview and effectively beginning the process of unmasking herself"" - This sentence is contrived and changes the meaning of what the original writer meant. Reading the article by NZ Listener and specifically the sentence "Resolutely self-aware and confident, thankfully without the precociousness of talent-show youth, O'Connor displays remarkably little of the nervousness you might expect for an artist conducting her first print interview and effectively beginning the process of unmasking herself," it is obvious that the writer just meant that Lorde is confident and does not display nervousness. It does not seem to explain the lyrical theme of the EP.
  • Ah, right. How does it look now? Simon (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "commercially release the EP for sales" - Isn't "for sales" redundant? Using the word "commercially" covers that
  • Moved "for sales". Simon (talk) 04:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the interview, Lorde's manager says "So initially we gave away 60,000 tracks." Do "tracks" equate to an entire EP? ("After being freely downloaded 60,000 times, UMG decided to commercially release the EP for sales"). Has the EP been downloaded 60,000 times?
I don't know whether individual tracks were available for download. I've replaced the citation used, which verifies that it was in fact 60,000 downloads of the EP. Adabow (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @WonderBoy1998: All your issues have been addressed. Many thanks, Simon (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "continuing to praise" and " continued to praise" are very similar, hence they sound repetitive. Modify one of them]\
  • Done. Simon (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it odd how the lead mentions that it had sold 60,000 in the US, but not that it had gone platinum in NZ and Australia
  • I have added a sentence in the lead. Simon (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I support now, although I would still suggest improving the prose a bit and make it great. Right now it's just good. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from WikiRedactor[edit]

  • In the infobox, I would drop the "At", remove the small text from "Morningside, Auckland, New Zealand", and place it in parentheses.
Done. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I would replace instances of "the US" with "the United States"; I forget where I heard it from, but it suggested that "United States" be used as a noun and "U.S." be used as an adjective when describing something (i.e. the U.S. Billboard 200).
"US" can be used as a noun. See [18]. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you include an as-of date to verify its sales in the United States?
Done. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how I feel about the word "admitted" in the "Background and production" section, how about something like "acknowledged", "commented", etc.?
Agreed; changed, thanks. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Composition" section, you mention that "Royals" was replaced by "Swingin Party" in the United States. If I remember correctly, this was done after "Royals" was released on Pure Heroine, is there any source you could add in that would verify this if this was the case?
I've see what I can dig up... Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've explained that the different tracklisting only came into affect in September 2013. Adabow (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the "Release and promotion" section, "Self-release (music)" should be relinked to "Self-publishing".
Why? Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the beginning of the "Reception" section, I would add a brief sentences about how the record received generally favorable reviews, just so it is available at a quick glance.
With only three critics mentioned, I feel that could be a bit dishonest to readers. There is a table with star ratings there, which offers a quick summary. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the track listing, can you reformat the title of the "New Zealand iTunes Store bonus track" so it matches the other two track listings?
I've slightly reworked the entire thing. Adabow (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything else looks in good shape, after these comments are addressed I'll check back in! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@WikiRedactor: How does the article look now? Simon (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, happy to give my support! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

  • Background and production
Can we find a luckier solution for "spotted"? Perhaps "discovered", or if you have a better idea of your own.
I think "spotted" is the best solution here. Simon (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
"started to write songs by herself"→"started writing songs herself"; better flow, I think.
Agree. Done. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Ultimately, the A&R paired Lorde with Joel Little–the A&R is MacLachlan, right?
Of course. As stated in the first sentence of the section "A&R representative" Scott MacLachlan. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, maybe you should replace "the A&R" with "MacLachlan". Surely there are other A&R officials from the label.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
MacLachlan is quite repetitive in this case. And in the article there is only one A&R listed. Simon (talk) 13:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps he would be a better solution? That ambiguous "A&R" can be any representative of Universal Music.
Done. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
yet criticised its "bullshit" references–references to what?
Already stated in the section. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
My bad. I wanted you to paraphrase the "expensive alcohol, beautiful clothes and beautiful cars" quote. It sounds like cliché.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we need to have this quote paraphrased. It's already got its meaning. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
"Lorde wrote the songs' lyrics"–only "the lyrics" would be fine
Fixed. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Release and promotion
This section reads much like a chronological table with all those dates and events altogether. Can you lessen this style of writing or overhaul the prose?
Nah, I just follow other recent FAs. I think it's the standard quality of album articles. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Reception
This title doesn't seem to fit the content of the section. We are presented with the certification, chart positions, and accolades, contradictory to what is stated in the heading.
I think they are related to each other. Appearing on charts, receiving accolades and certifications are also a type of "reception". Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we at least use sub-headings to differentiate the critical reception from the accolades and commercial success?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
If so the sub-sections will be extremely short. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The name of the Allmusic critic should be stated.
In the source given there is no name of the critic. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Then perhaps you should say just Allmusic?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The "indeed" in Schulz's quote seems unnecessary.
Removed "indeed". Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you paraphrase "fully formed"?
Since "fully formed" is quite misleading, I have removed the term. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Avoid mentioning the ratings in the prose, since they are already given in the table.
Per WP:MOSALBUM. Simon (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no mentioning that the ratings should be presented both in the prose and table. My suggestion is of practical reasons, to avoid stating one information twice.--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I've removed AllMusic rating in the box. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
My point wasn't to remove the Allmusic grade. The writing style should be consistent here. Either present all of the ratings in table, or avoid using table and write them in the prose. A mixture of those two is not acceptable; neither is repeating information at both places.
Is your point to remove the star ratings in the paragraph? Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Done. Simon (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sales and certifications
The US certification is missing.
Nielsen SoundScan only list sales here. According to the RIAA database, the EP does not receive any certifications. Simon (talk) 02:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Can we somehow notify that, lets say by putting slash or N.A. maybe?--Retrohead (talk) 07:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying, but seems to be impossible. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC) Done. Simon (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Additional notes on prose
For example, you can say just "production" instead of "overall production" or "style" instead of "musical style" in the lead, hence this is musical item, right?
  • Done. Simon (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, the during is extra in "Lorde performed during various concerts"; it is commonly accepted to use "6× Platinum" over "septuple platinum".
  • Septuple is also accepted, but I have replaced it. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"all of which were written by Lorde"–I assume "all of" can be easily dropped without changing the meaning of the sentence
  • Removed. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
"Bravado" is a chamber pop[8] and electropop song[10]–I think this is a case of WP:SYNTH. One critic says "this is chamber pop", another one says "this is electropop song", and you combined those two opinions into one sentence.
  • After considering this, I have removed "electropop" because Village Voice is not as suitable as NZ Herald. Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Please notify me if you have any questions related to the notes. I'll come back later to check the progress. Good luck.--Retrohead (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. They are highly appreciated! Regards, Simon (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as the majority of my concern were not addressed or explained. Though the article is well-researched and referenced, it has some issues with prose comprehensiveness that can not be overlooked.--Retrohead (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of them have been addressed. Simon (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrohead, I have replied to your concerns. Simon (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Simon, my opinion remains the same. The prose is quite garrulous at few places, as pointed in the posts above.--Retrohead (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Retrohead, how about this time? Simon (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
About the rating, you can go either as in Confusion, where the ratings are presented in the prose, or as I suggested, using table for the grades and avoid mentioning them in the text. Using a mixture of both, as in the present state, is not consistent.--Retrohead (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Retrohead: Okay, I got it! How about it now? Simon (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I definitely see progress in the work, but I've got a few concerns left. The "writer at AllMusic" was returned although you've said above that you had fulfilled that note. I still think that "favourable review" is more suitable than the three star rating already written in the box. There's some paraphrasing left to be done, and here are some additional notes:
  • The AllMusic issue was done. Simon (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Little created the melodies–perhaps "composed" is a better solution?
  • Done. Simon (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • After being freely downloaded–freely is extra
  • If so, some people will mislead. Simon (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • released digitally–digitally released
  • It's the same. Simon (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Lorde replaced Frank Ocean, at the–the comma is extra
  • Removed. Simon (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • At the 56th Annual Grammy Awards (2014)–you can say 2014 Grammy Awards, which is far simpler
  • I did that in order to avoid redirect. Simon (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • As I previously specified, please try using "day, month, year" structures less frequently. Not that this is "wrong", but it certainly drags away the reader's attention.
I'll stop the review here. My overall impression, as WonderBoy1998 already stated, is that the prose maybe is of GA caliber, but has certain flaws that keep the article away from FA status. This article, according to me, shouldn't exemplify how featured albums should read, and shouldn't be placed in the same category as articles such as Marquee Moon or Are You Experienced, for example.--Retrohead (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Uh, Simon, Retrohead, who's turn is it? Are we waiting on nominator actions or reviewer feedback? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: As Retrohead stated above, he said that he would not leave any more comments. Simon (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused why did Simon say the issues with naming the Allmusic writer and paraphrasing some of the pointed quotes were done, when they are obviously reverted to the previous state. Since the notes with the dating, sentence wording (predominantly at the reception section) and reference synthesis are still unresolved, my vote remains the same.--Retrohead (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The AllMusic issue has been done lately, and for the paraphrasing issue, I have responded to your comment. Best, Simon (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from FreshBlueLotus[edit]


  • The Love Club EP is the debut extended play (EP) by New Zealand recording artist Lorde. ("the debut" or "a debut").
  • "the" debut is grammartically correct here. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • At the age of 12, Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan and began writing songs by herself ("and" inhibits clarity about age. In the Background and production – "Lorde was spotted … at the age of 12, ... At the age of 13, Lorde started writing songs herself. "). Recommend: "In her early teens, Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan when she began writing songs by herself."
  • Why? I think mentioning the exact age is more suitable. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In December 2011, MacLachlan paired Lorde with producer Joel Little and within three weeks, Lorde and Little co-wrote and produced all of the songs for the EP. Recommend: "In December 2011, MacLachlan paired Lorde with producer Joel Little and within three weeks, they co-wrote and produced all the songs for the EP."
  • I have changed to "the pair" Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In November 2012, the EP was released for free via SoundCloud. Recommend: "In November 2012, the free version of the EP was released via SoundCloud." (I agree it doesn’t match with "In November 2012, Lorde self-released The Love Club EP through her SoundCloud account for free download". The fact that "Lorde self-released" it should be mentioned.)
  • Rewritten. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • An indie rock-influenced electronica album, The Love Club EP received general acclaim from music critics, who praised its overall production and compared its musical style to works by Sky Ferreira, Florence & the Machine and Lana Del Rey. Recommend: "received a general acclaim from the music critics".
  • It is uncountable. Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Acclaim" cannot be used as a noun in this way; I have reworded this part of the sentence. "The" is incorrect before "critics", as that would imply that all critics (of the world, or some other undefined set) acclaimed the album. "Critics" alone means "some critics". Adabow (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • To promote The Love Club EP, Lorde performed during various concerts and "Royals" was released as a single. Recommend: "To promote The Love Club EP, Lorde performed in various concerts and also released "Royals" as a single."
  • During is more correct than "in". Simon (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Background and production

  • Lorde … at the age of 12. At the age of 13, Lorde … . in December 2011, when Lorde had just turned 15. Recommend: Try replacing the overemphasis on age with one term to indicate she was a prodigy; e.g. "A prodigy in her early teens, Lorde at the age of 12 …".


  • Critics compared the EP's musical style to works by Sky Ferreira, Florence and the Machine and Lana Del Rey. ("The" critics … ?)
  • Editor Jim Pinckney from New Zealand Listener opined that Lorde's songs are structured in a manner of a short story. ("The" editor … ?)
  • "Royals" and "Million Dollar Bills" are two tracks that criticize the glamorous lifestyle of the rich ("the" two tracks … ?)
  • The title track of the EP, "The Love Club", discusses the befriendment of "a bad crowd". (Is "befriendment" a standard word? Sounds a tough one for me; couldn’t find in my thesaurus.)

Release and promotion

  • After being freely downloaded 60,000 times, UMG decided to commercially release the EP. ("After a free download of 60,000, UMG …")
  • I am not sure that "a free download..." is acceptable. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • On 8 March 2013, The Love Club EP was released digitally in Australia,[20] New Zealand,[21] and the United States.[22] (club inline citations 20, 21, 22 at the end after the full stop.)
  • That would be quite misleading. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The compact disc (CD) edition of the record was released in New Zealand on 10 May,[23] in Australia a week later,[24] and in the United States on 9 July.[25] (again club inline citations 23, 24, 25 at the end after the full stop. "The compact disc (CD) edition" or simply "The CD version …"; CD is compact disc is fairly commonly known.)
  • Not done the first issue. The second issue, I have changed compact disc to CD. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Royals" was released as the only single from the EP; on 3 June 2013, Lava and Republic Records sent the track to US adult album alternative (AAA) radio. (Are the two statements joined with a semicolon related?) Recommend: ""Royals" was released as the only single from the EP in the US. On 3 June 2013, Lava and Republic Records sent the track to US adult album alternative (AAA) radio." In lead "the US" – "In the US, the record charted at number 23", here "US"; maintain consistency.
  • Done. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


  • A writer from AllMusic gave The Love Club EP three stars out of five, calling it "evocative", continuing to praise the albums "sultry, sinewy" sound and drawing comparison to the work of Sky Ferreira, Florence + the Machine, Lana Del Rey, and Grimes. Recommend: "The EP received three stars out of five from a writer at AllMusic who called it "evocative" and praised its "sultry, sinewy" sound while comparing it to the work of Sky Ferreira, Florence & the Machine, Lana Del Rey, and Grimes." (Sky Ferreira, Florence "&" the Machine – currently there is a "+" sign.)
  • Slightly rewritten. Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A delight to read! --FreshBlueLotus (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

PS: I stumbled here from this article talk page, and thought I'd comment! Didn't have an account so created one! --FreshBlueLotus (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comments are very appreciated! Thank you, Simon (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • The first instance of New Zealand should be linked, not the second
  • Done. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lorde was spotted by Universal Music Group A&R Scott MacLachlan and began writing songs by herself"..... I don't think the "by herself" part is needed here.
  • Removed. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Lorde acknowledged that she was inspired by hip hop-influenced music artists"..... keep it simple- she took inspiration from hip-hop influenced artists.
  • Done. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "when she was on holiday after finishing a school term" → "during a school break"
  • If so, we can't know that she had just finished a school term. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • That's trivial content, i.e.: irrelevant to the article. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, fixed. Simon (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand this clearly. Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • If the Background section mentions The New Zealand Herald, then another mention of it in, say, Critical Reception should not be linked. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Prism. I went and unlinked them myself. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Geez, thanks, Simon (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ella Yelich-O'Connor" should link to Lorde
  • Where should I link? Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It was for "Track listing", but I've done this myself. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Not much to do here, really. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Simon (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Done all. Simon (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Now I officially support! SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 04:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Pedro[edit]

  • Like Snuggums said, there's not much to be done here. However, I did note the absence of AllMusic from the ratings table, and I agree with some points that Snuggums noted (the ones that I commented on, above). I Support this nomination but I want to see those points fixed. pedro | talk 00:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned, though I note a MOS error in the sample caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

How does it look now? Simon (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"21 second" -> "21-second" and it will be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! It has been done. Simon (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)