Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Great Stink[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

A rather small, seemingly insignificant event in the life of London, but one that some of us still feel the benefits of over 150 years later. The Great Stink showed the right man in the right place at the right time, with Joseph Bazalgette stepping forward to build the sewer system to end all sewer systems, providing London with an effluent-free river. And he did it while sporting a magnificent set of whiskers to boot! Any and all comments welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I left my only minor quibbles with it during the PR. Certainly looks to be an excellent account of the ordeal and meets FA criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Publication names like The Examiner should be italicized in in-text attribution
  • Long quotes like "We can colonise..." should be blockquoted
  • No citations to Dobraszczyk 2008
  • Location for Cherry?
  • Ryan: do you possibly mean Boca Raton, Florida? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – Another peer reviewer clocking in. My queries there were few and small, all dealt with, and I have found nothing else to quibble at on rereading. The text meets all the FA criteria, in my view. A most interesting, and slightly unnerving, article, which I much look forward to seeing enlivening the front page. Tim riley talk 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious (87)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious was the first British armoured carrier and served throughout WWII. Her aircraft sank one Italian battleship and damaged two others at Taranto in 1940 before she was badly damaged by German dive bombers in early 1941. She saw service against the Vichy French and Japanese later in the war before the accumulated effects of battle damage forced her to return home in mid-1945. After the war she served as the Home Fleet's trials and training carrier for most of her subsequent career before being scrapped in 1956. As always I'm interested in cleaning up my prose, catching any lingering AmEnglish spellings and any unexplained jargon. The article passed a MilHist A-class review back in December and I believe that it meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I reviewed this for prose at A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hermeneutic style[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the elaborate style of Latin in Anglo-Saxon England. It has received a peer review and passed GA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, with a couple of suggestions.

  • I don't really like the end of the first section (the bit about the different meaning of the phrase). Besides being self-referential, it seems somewhat out of place at the end of a section, after hermeneutic style has already been established by the preceding text to have a certain meaning. Do you think it could be added as a footnote in the lede? If not, maybe you could put it at the beginning of that section instead of at the end.
  • I have put it as a note to the end of the definition section. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks just right this way, I think.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As a minor point, could you please change one or two uses of "the Continent" to "continental Europe" to help readers who might not be familiar with the other usage (just in case)?
  • In England: "According to Scott Thompson Smith, "Æthelstan A"s charters..." The way the quotes are used here makes it a bit confusing and unclear whether or not it's meant to be possessive. I suggest "According to Scott Thompson Smith, the charters of "Æthelstan A" are..." to avoid confusion and quotation mark strangeness.

Other than those minor points, I can't find anything to criticize. You've done a great job on this topic, which I confess to having never heard of until reading your article.-RHM22 (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, everything looks good now. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • All images are PD-old or PD-art/PD-old and have sufficient source information - OK.
  • File:Apuleuis.jpg - added some background information to image summary. - OK as illustration. His depiction differs vastly within Commons:Category:Apuleius, but this depiction has some source information to clarify the situation. GermanJoe (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much.


  • fixed some MOS:ENDASH issues in references, I have not checked in-text dashes and hyphens though.
  • "Lapidge 1993" - I'd put the reprint information within the full citation, it's a bit distracting in the reflist. Template:cite book has |orig-year= for such details (see template documentation for usage info). GermanJoe (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how to deal with this. The book is a reprint of essays, and where I cite his view in the article as held in 1975 it is relevant that the essay was originally published then, but I also cite other essays not from 1975. I cannot see a field in the cite book template for a note saying that one chapter was originally published earlier. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's just a suggestion, but I would personally just use the 1993 citation, since you mention explicitly both times it's cited that the opinions are from Lapidge's 1975 essay. Alternatively, if you have the 1975 work, add it separately to the bibliography. GermanJoe may have a better suggestion; I'm not known as an expert formatter by any means.-RHM22 (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe @Nikkimaria: has a good idea. I can't remember a case in the past, where "old" reprints and new research were cited from the same book. Noting the original article title (somewhere in the citation) might help to reduce this confusion, not sure. GermanJoe (talk) 03:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So each essay in the book is from a different time? If so, I see your options as follows: you cite the essay directly as originally published, or you include full bibliographic details for each essay - using either orig-year as GermanJoe suggests, or this method - or you combine the two and go with something of the form (original details. Reprinted in current details). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear, is this an entire essay being reprinted or just someone quoting from an older essay?-RHM22 (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Never mind; I found it on Google Books. See here. Everything is reprinted from other sources. Nikkimaria, can Dudley Miles use the same citations that are used in the acknowledgements section, to make it a bit simpler?-RHM22 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for everyone's helpful comments. I have been looking at whether I have access to the original 1975 article in the journal Anglo-Saxon England, and so far as I can tell I do not, although I have only just got access to JSTOR and I am not yet familiar with it. I cite extensively from the paper, but I only mention the 1975 date twice where it is relevant. I have thought of putting an efn note with name= against each mention of the 1975 date with an explanation of the date discrepancy. Another alternative is to go to a library which has the original paper and photocopy it. Further comments gratefully received. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like this specific article is not in JSTOR (but feel free to double-check) :/. The only journal entry for him in 1975 is "Some Remnants of Bede's Lost Liber Epigrammatum". GermanJoe (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • After some testing this ref works for the situation: "<ref>{{harvnb|Lapidge|1993|p=105}} reprinted from {{harvnb|Lapidge|1975|p=orig. page number}}</ref>". Having this short ref, you can define a separate citation for the Lapidge 1975 article with all "old" biblio info (note: "sfnm" would work too, but doesn't allow flexible additional text between the 2 templates). GermanJoe (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Joe. Sorry about putting you to trouble but I think I have found a better solution. I have arranged for the original article to be emailed to me so that I can cite that directly. I can add a note to the 1975 source that it is reprinted in the 1993 book. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can cite the 1975 source directly, you don't need to mention the reprint (the original source is actually the "better", more authentic source for referencing). And no worries, I actually enjoy such technical challenges :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Refs now changed to 1975 source. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and commented at the time that it seemed to me of FA standard. I still think so, and the additional images are an excellent bonus. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Giant mouse lemur[edit]

Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a lesser known group of nocturnal lemurs, closely related to the fork-marked lemurs that recently passed FAC. Everything should be in order, and I plan to do additional proofreads over the coming days. I am also trying to acquire more photos from experts in the field, but I may not be able to acquire anything new until March. – Maky « talk » 17:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk[edit]

Seems like you're still doing some tweaks, so I'll come back in a few days for a full review. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Tweaks are now done. I just had to do a second proofread and copy edit (to the best of my abilities). I also added new material from an older source that initially I thought had been sufficiently summarized by other (newer) sources. Thanks for your patience and sorry for the delay. – Maky « talk » 08:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review - All images are user created and CC-licensed, apart form one, whose author died in 1905. No problems, but potential additional images will have to be checked later. FunkMonk (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a successful Argentine telenovela. It has been selected as a good article, and improved even further since then. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Marie (2014)[edit]

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

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

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

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Marie_Aug_24_2014_1830Z.png: do you have a link to confirm author? Not seeing it in given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hatoful Boyfriend[edit]

Nominator(s): SilverserenC 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a quirky dating sim visual novel involving pigeons as the objects of your infatuation. Originally produced as an indie title in Japan with a hastily made English patch slapped on top of it, the game obtained an online cult following rapidly, which eventually led to it being officially published by a major games publishing company. A real rags to riches story. Involving pigeon love interests. SilverserenC 19:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose At a first glance, it looks like the vast majority of references are either from the game itself, its creator Moa Hato's blogs or the websites of its developers PigeoNation, Devolver Digital and Frontier Works. Indeed I count only around 30 of the 140 references to be from sources that aren't self-published or primary. Even among those I'm not sure of the reliability of clickbait like "The 6 Most Insane Video Games About Dating", or unvetted, user-contributed content like this or Game Skinny.

Further, the prose is often difficult to read. It is at times overlinked ("severed", "pandemic", "Japan") and interrupted by Japanese-language text. There's also no need of a table for just one item. I'm puzzled why the story for the Bad Boys Love alternative game is ten times as long as that for the main game itself.—indopug (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realised that most of the self-published references is for content that is excruciatingly detailed and uninteresting to read. So you could kill two birds in one stone by severely trimming the Bad Boys Love story, Release history, English localization and Adaptations.—indopug (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed that reference #62 points to Tumblr. Is that really a credible source? Singora (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Singora: The Tumblr sources are from the author's own Tumblr (so a self-published source about themselves). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Benjamin Tillman[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a racist, bigot and killer, who was also a senator and governor of his state, and a non-trivial figure in American history. It's necessary that this article be done, it is a story that deserved to be told better, even if not a story we care much for. Normally I say "enjoy" but ...--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – As one of the peer reviewers. My few quibbles were dealt with there. This subject is odious, but it is Wikipedia's job to cover vile human beings as scrupulously as we do the good guys. I congratulate Wehwalt on this article: it can't have been fun to write, and it is neutral, well-balanced, and as excellently readable as we have come to expect from this source. Full marks, but can we have a fully-paid-up member of the human race next time, please?

I'll see what I can do in that department. Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources review: The sources are all of the appropriate standard of reliability. The one format issue I can find is in ref. 133, which requires a pp. not a p. Otherwise, all in order. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: I tend to share Tim's sentiments, both about the repellent character of the subject and the quality of the article that presents him to us. My detailed comments are in the peer review, and I have nothing particular to add now. There were probably more Tillmans than Greeleys around in America, in the second half of the 19th century, more's the pity. I'm glad to see that Horace has his star now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and for the kind words. I've fixed the source issue, and will undertake to do someone less offensive than Tillman next time. Easy standard to meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Great article, I enjoyed reading it. I made a few minor copyedits, but nothing else stood out as needing correcting. One thing that might help: where you discuss the Farmers Alliance and the sub-treasury, it might be useful to link to the system in widespread use that the farmers were reacting against: the crop-lien system. Lawrence Goodwyn's The Populist Moment is a good source on that, if you need one. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will add that in. As it is discussed, no additional source should be necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Doubts of Eddie Hugh

I have some doubts about the neutrality and balance of parts of this article. There is a lot of negative content (understandably), much of which comes from one source (Kantrowitz's book), and some of which contains assumptions and/or insinuations. Examples include:

  • "Tillman and his men arrived too late to participate in those killings" (assumption/insinuation that they would have participated).
Yes, they would have. See Tillman 1909 if you want the gory details, but the source here is a fair summation. I'm reasonably certain that the Tillman 1909 reference is where his later biographers get info on his role in Hamburg and Ellenton.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that it's preferable to state that they would have / intended to join in, but arrived too late, rather than hint at it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Democrats were able to suppress the Republican/African-American vote, reporting a win for Hampton in Edgefield County with over 60 percent of the vote. Bolstered by this result, Hampton gained a narrow victory statewide, at least according to the official returns" (insinuation).
Tillman admitted that he and others stuffed ballot boxes. This is not a matter of historical dispute. He went into considerable detail as to how he and others did it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, just state that; "reporting a win" and "at least according to" could be expressed plainly (and be more accurate by doing so; and create a more detailed impression of Tillman for most readers). EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've added a sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Tillman and others had a celebratory meal at the home of the man who had pointed out which African Americans should be shot" (what was being celebrated? The insinuation/assumption is the killings.).
Yes. That is what they were celebrating. Have you examined Tillman 1909? This is again not a matter of doubt as Tillman often spoke of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, stating that in the article would clarify the point for the reader. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've tweaked it to make it clearer.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Tillman's death generated a large number of tributes to him in the Senate, [...] Blease, who was angry that Tillman was being lauded, and stated that the late senator was not what he had seemed. He wrote in front of the volume, "Don't believe me, but look up his life & see."" (why not mention some of the tributes, instead of implying that they were false? Putting this in the following section might help to reduce the bias of having it at the end of a section and link it with some more positive things that are there.).
The source does not quote from the lauds. I do not think it is necessary for us to go beyond the sources in such a manner. If a reputable biographer does not feel it necessary, how do we second guess? As for Blease, given that he was a white supremacist himself, I am hesitant to put it in the legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If they were stated in the Senate, I imagine that they're available somewhere, but it can be left. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The late senator's supporters and protégés lingered long in South Carolina, [...] Others who knew and at one time admired Tillman who persisted long on the South Carolina scene" ("lingered" and "persisted" have negative connotations).
I don't agree with you on this, but will modify the verbs.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Despite being a white supremacist, Tillman as governor initially took a strong stand against lynching" (the "despite" looks like editorializing).
Fair enough. Introductory phrase struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "taken action to prevent such murders, they still occurred, with no one being prosecuted for them" (more editorializing: if no-one was prosecuted, they weren't murders).
I disagree, but will change to "killings".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "With Tillman as governor, "the former Red-shirt faced the mob as head of state."" (another bit of Kantrowitz that is more snide than informative).
As is developed throughout the section, Tillman had a conflict because of his former role as Red Shirt. This is developed throughout the section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
But why end the para with it? The fact (former Red Shirt, governor of state) is self-evident from what's been stated earlier; all that's added by including the quotation here is an editorial comment to counter the possibility of a positive tinge emerging from the description of BT's lynching stance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Struck.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest: a greater variety of sources; some hedging in places by stating whose interpretation is being presented; and giving information plainly to allow the reader to reach a conclusion, rather than leading the reader to a particular conclusion/impression through insinuations.

Unless there are comprehensive sources on Tillman that are being overlooked, I don't see what I am supposed to do about the matter. Tillman has only the biographers set forth. Everything is footnoted. Over two dozen sources are used, including many recent and scholarly articles. I am afraid that to a certain extent, we must take Tillman as we find him. If you note, the first two reviewers seem to be holding their mouths and running in the direction of the toilet because of how fair I am being to Tillman. I will ask them if they wish to comment further in light of your concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Some other things encountered:

  • Source 2 takes me to a login screen.
Subscription tag added.
  • There's "African American", "African-American", "the African American" and "black" used; avoiding the second one is the current preference, I believe.
That is when used as an adjective, and the article is consistent in that regard. Note the article title, African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought I'd spotted a non-adjectival use, but all fine. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Red Shirts and Reconstruction" is a heading, but there's no description of what/who red shirts were.
  • "Tillman proved an adept farmer" is contradicted by "after two marginal years, the 1868 crop was destroyed by caterpillars" and "Tillman's losses in the agricultural depression of 1883–1898".
Even an adept farmer may suffer problems like that, Remember, the Florida problem occurred when Tillman was 18-20, and the language you quote is later. As for his losses, well, given the nationwide economic problems, losses are not entirely surprising. In spite of the losses, Tillman made himself a wealthy man through farming.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "today Clemson University". Better to avoid "today", as it may change.
I've changed it to "later", though I think it unnecessary. If Clemson University's name changed, I suspect our good editors would go through and change every reference to Clemson.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Charleston News and Courier". Should all of that be in italics?
That is the source.
  • "Even most Conservatives would not support a bolt from the party". "Bolt" has several, diverse meanings. Using a different word would help.
That is a proper political term, which I've used in FA's before, see William Jennings Bryan presidential campaign, 1896. I do not feel the article goes out of its way to use jargon, nor is there ambiguity.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I had to look it up. "The act of suddenly breaking away; breaking away from a political party (U.S. colloq.)" says the OED. Fine if the US colloq bit is not regarded as a barrier in this instance. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "With the race given control of one of South Carolina's seven congressional districts". I don't understand this; is "race" the correct word?
The legislature gerrymandered as many black voters as it could into a single district. This is made clear in the discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I was a bit slow. "the race" = "the African American". Going from the definite article form (rather than the plural form) to "the race" threw me. Fine if no-one else hesitated over it. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I thought this awkward, as well, perhaps born of a desire not to repeat the same words too often? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Changed to "blacks".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Inauguration and legislative control" section. The indented quote is shorter than the preceding one that is not indented.
That is true, but the second quote is where he gets down to cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if I'll go beyond that, but it's what I offer for now. EddieHugh (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. The bottom line is, you think I'm being unfair to Tillman by such words as "murders". I disagree. No modern source on Tillman is as dispassionate as you would have. Lynching was wrong, and all sources make this clear. Failure to do so in this article would leave me open to charges of being a racist. This is the balance, and I think it fairly respects the sources, of which there are nearly thirty. I assure you, some of the sources are far from dispassionate about Tillman. What more can I do?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm using NPOV, impartial tone: "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized" and, from the same page, "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Of course lynching was wrong, but how that and other things are presented also must be considered. Reminders to the reader that BT was bad, words that hint at negativity, insinuations rather than plain statements... these actually weaken the strength of the presented evidence 'against' BT: just present what there is and BT's actions will speak for themselves, without leading or commenting being required! EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a PhD thesis, "Benjamin Ryan Tillman: the South Carolina Years, 1847-1894"; and a book by Eubanks, "Ben Tillman's Baby: The Dispensary System of South Carolina, 1892-1915": any use? EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Dispensary system probably not. I am searching for online access to the thesis, it is not at a library within 280 miles of me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It does not seem to be available online. Given that it is cited by other sources such as Kantrowitz and the ANB, it is something that would be nice to have but I don't consider it necessary. And I checked academic sources through my George Mason University access.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I have read this article carefully twice – at peer review and then for the present FAC. It seems to me that Wehwalt has been scrupulously neutral throughout. The suggestion that we mustn't say "murder" if nobody has been convicted cannot be entertained even fleetingly. Wikipedia has an entire article on "unsolved murders", which would be a contradiction in terms if we accepted the novel premise that without a conviction a killing is not a murder. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the noun as "The deliberate and unlawful killing of a human being", and that is manifestly what we are considering here. As to the other points, I am not altogether in agreement with some of the concessions Wehwalt has made in response, but they have not materially damaged the neutrality of the article, which remains impeccable, in my view, and I do not press the point. – Tim riley talk 07:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting – I used the same definition as my starting point! It's a legal reality that, if there's no conviction for murder, then there's been no murder. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
In English law (on which I believe American law is based) the exact opposite is the truth. Nobody can be tried for a crime until it has first been demonstrated that the crime has been committed. See Corpus delicti. But perhaps Tillman or his compatriots changed all that in the United States. – Tim riley talk 12:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Even following that line, it would be necessary to discover if murder was established at the time, to look at the definition of murder at the time, etc., etc. Much simpler to use the accurate "killings" rather than the assumption-based "murders". My key point remains the leading in how the information is presented, rather than what is presented. On the "murders" part again, "there were claims that the black victim had raped" is in the next sentence. "murders" leads the reader in one direction, which is reinforced by "claims", which is reinforced by the subsequent and (presumably) non-specific "though studies have shown that". All of this content (the what) could be presented (the how) plainly, without leading. I'd hope that part of the collective goal here is to present the life of a saintly pacifist in the same way as the life of a Tillman – that is, leaving the reader to interpret the content to the maximum extent possible, instead of having to interpret the presentation. The changes made so far help towards that end. EddieHugh (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're being too picky on the murder matter, but if you're generally content, let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I add:

  • A bit more on his family would be appropriate for a biography (apologies if it's already there). For instance, he had a son who died in 1950.
    • I'd be interested in this, too, if sources exist. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The intro (p. xxvi) to the 2002 edition of Simkins' books states that BT's powers were much reduced by strokes in 1908 and 1910. I don't think this is included at the moment.
I've added it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "but a greater price was paid, electorally and in lives, by the African American". The same author's words were "a most costly price" in the intro mentioned in my point immediately above; does source 2 justify "a greater price"?
Yes, "While he energized the mass of rural white voters to challenge the aristocratic rule of the state by the Bourbon Democrats, he did so at the expense of the state's African Americans." combined with the discussion further above in the article about 1876. I've added the cite from Simkins to more fully justify it.
  • There's a proposal to rename Tillman Hall at Clemson University. I'm not sure of the most recent status of this, but it might be a good idea to monitor it and update the article if/when it does change. EddieHugh (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Turned down by the trustees a couple of weeks ago after an endorsement by the faculty senate. I'll add something.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • EddieHugh, this is a useful critique, but I think Wehwalt has gone far enough in making the article neutral. It's always difficult with an odious subject, but I think what's presented in the article mirrors the modern scholarly consensus. You'd be hard-pressed to find any historian alive today who disagrees that Tillman participated in violence and electoral fraud against his black neighbors. I agreed with a couple of your points, as I noted above, but I think to do much more would tip from neutrality into false equivalency. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a tendency today on Wikipedia to call any adjective, any descriptive statement, to be POV. I do not agree with that. We have to take people as they are, warts and all. I think I've gone quite a long way in answering EddieHugh's concerns, with some of which I agreed, some of which I did not and I may reconsider one or two (killings for murder). I think that in substance, I've addressed the concerns. I would ask EddieHugh to acknowledge that in general, the matters that he has brought up have been addressed, or if not, at least seriously considered and reasons given.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. A well-balanced article, and neutral to the point of being painful in places (possibly too much, but don't chnage it on the basis of me!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and support. This sort of article does tend to get one into a reviewer fork.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As you say in you preamble to this review, Tillman was a racist, bigot and killer – and he gloried in these "achievements". To quibble over whether he was a murderer or merely a killer is pedantry. The article seems to me to be admirably restrained in its portrait of this dreadful man; it presents him as the sources do, and there is no need for you to go any further, in the interests of supposed neutrality, in looking for any balancing gloss. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use the "upright" parameter for images that are wider than they are tall
  • File:1890SCGovResults.png: is this based on a pre-existing map? What is the source for this data?
  • File:Von_engelken.png: confused by date given - this is dated to 1916 but struck 1898? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
1) Fixed 2) Removed, as Gamecock's election maps seem to be slowly getting deleted and he's not around to defend them, and 3) Fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "... was an American politician of the Democratic Party who was Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...": What do you think of this? "... was a Democratic Governor of South Carolina from 1890 to 1894, and a United States Senator ...". That tells us he's American.
Thanks, but I think it would be best to just drop the "American".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Back in a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll stop there for now. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for doing what you could do.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the country named Turkey. This article was a FA, now a GA, and i have completed all the things that has been stated in peer review. kazekagetr 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Only examining references and reference formatting so far:

  • There is a consistent problem where websites are cited by their URL and not their name (or the name of the publishing entity). This is true of nearly all cited websites and needs to be corrected across the board (for a counterexample, the IMF source correctly identifies it as the International Monetary Fund rather than merely
  • Sources that are not in English need to have their language (generally Turkish, I assume) indicated.
  • Author formatting is not consistent. In the first dozen sources, I see both Last, First and First Last presentations.
  • At least five separate references are to various elements of The World Factbook (reference #2, 5, 193, 201, 250 at this time); all FIVE are formatted differently.
  • Reference 6 (2014 Human Development Report) has insufficient bibliographic information.
  • All ISBN numbers should ideally be correctly-hyphenated ISBN-13 (reference 7 has an ISBN-10). Happily, this is easy to fix. No Wikipedia editor should leave home without the official ISBN converter! At least one book (Steadman and McMahon) is missing an ISBN entirely.
  • Reference 8 ("Turkey in the Balkans") is incorrectly formatted, needs the website indicated properly, and is missing the available publication date.
  • Book sources are not consistent about whether they provide publication year (as with National Geographic Atlas of the World) or precise publication date (Steadman and McMahon). Howard's The History of Turkey has no publication date given whatsoever.
  • Why is this a reliable source?
  • Reference 15 (Köprülü and Leiser) is incorrectly formatted and missing a host of essential bibliographic information.
  • Reference 16 (and others like it) are functionally bare URLs. In this case, that's doubly inappropriate, as it is a Google Books presentation of a print source, and should be correctly cited as such.
  • Reference 17 (Journal of Genocide Research) is not formatted in the same manner as other journal references.
  • Same goes for 18 (Slavic Review).
  • Encyclopædia Britannica is a tertiary source and generally not preferred as a reference at the FA level; if retained, reference 19 is incomplete and improperly formatted.

...and I'm stopping here. There are 317 references. I'm not even 10% of the way in, and I'm struggling to find any that are bibliographically complete and properly formatted. Additionally, browsing over the cited material in general, I feel this article is built primarily upon relative weak sourcing: tertiary sources, government publications, news reports. There are mountains of literature on nearly every aspect of Turkey: scholarly articles and books published by major, respected publishing houses. The FA criteria require that articles represent a comprehensive survey of the literature, and even overlooking the state of the reference formatting, I simply do not see the results of a truly comprehensive survey here. Regrettably (and without comment whatsoever on prose issues), I must oppose. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Alt text is not a FA requirement. It is a matter for individual preference (you could always add the text yourself). Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not required, but it is something all FAs should have. It tells those without images enabled on their browsers and the visually impaired what the image shows. -Newyorkadam (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam


Nominator(s): Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Irataba (also known as Yara tav, from eecheeyara tav; c. 1814 – 1874), the last independent head chief of the Mohave Nation of Native Americans. He was the first Native from the Southwestern United States to meet a US president; Abraham Lincoln gave him a fancy cane. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • Should use upright for the lead image as well, if possible
Two days ago, another user suggested that I remove the upright parameter from all images, so I'm not sure what to do with the conflicting advice. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
As the picture tutorial explains, omitting upright from an image that is taller than it is wide has the potential to create display problems; it suggests using upright=1.0 to obtain the default thumbnail width, which would accomplish what that other user appears to want. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Did this edit fix the problem? I don't know how to add the upright parameter for the infobox image. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed this. To clarify, upright should be used when the image is meant to be taller than it is wide; in other cases omitting the parameter and using default size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Homesteader_NE_1866.png: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Also need US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that, but I did add the US PD tag as requested. If this image's PD status is questionable, I'd be happy to replace it, but I'll retain it until you explicitly tell me it should be removed. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it is likely PD, but the tag you have added does not appear to be correct — the image description gives a date of 1886, but your tag states that "it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice". Can you explain why you selected that particular tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Not really. I'm not up on all the different tags, so I picked the wrong one. Can you please point me to the right one? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Is this one correct? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that one will work — you might consider removing the life+70 tag since we can't demonstrate that it's correct, and it isn't needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. [1] Rationalobserver (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I will have to spread this review over several days. I'll copyedit while reviewing, please treat those as any other edit.

  • Infobox
    • artist's rendering jarred. We don't normally use that phrase for a portrait and this was published during his lifetime. Is there any reason why you have described it so?
      I think the source that I got it from said that. I'll remove it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks. The file source does indeed say that (linked in the file description). It would be good to check the original in Harper's Weekly Magazine, but I have not found it online. Perhaps I was wrong to moan about this... --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Early life and vision
    • [nb 1] is misplaced (talking about "goose grease insead of mud").
      Thanks. I fixed it now. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • According to historian...: It looks as if some content has gone awol, since this sentence talks about dreams or visions with no previous mention (apart from in the title of the section).
      That's correct. I removed lots of content after a talk page discussion suggested that Frank Waters isn't a good source for encyclopedic writing. I just wanted to at least mention the importance of visions to Mohave, so the article wasn't completely sanitized by Western standards. What should I do? 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
      I agree with RHM22 below that the information about dreams does not really belong here. Perhaps you could try moving it to the next section, Adulthood, which in fact is talking about the Mohave tribe rather than Irataba himself. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      Mirokado: Sorry to butt in here, but I'd like to point out that Rationalobserver has removed the bit about dreams for now, until and unless the reference he/she ordered includes information which might suggest that it's relevant to Irataba.-RHM22 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      Ah yes, I see that now. I think I had forgotten to refresh a browser tab. You are welcome to comment if you think it will help! --Mirokado (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Contact with European Americans
    • Beale's Wagon Road began at Fort Smith...: I imagine it was only called this subsequently? Perhaps: "His journey began at Fort Smith and continued through Fort Defiance, Arizona before crossing the Colorado River near Needles, California. (ref) This route became known as Beale's Wagon Road and the location where Beale crossed the river, Beale's Crossing.(ref)"
Those are awesome suggestions. Thanks and done! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

--Mirokado (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

More comments later, run out of time tonight. --Mirokado (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have several comments about the images. The first, which is what started me looking at them, is arguably stylistic choice, but others are more substantial issues, so I end with a suggestion for changes:

  • The color images, particularly the first, dominate the article visually and detract from the black-and-white ones.
  • The fist and third color images are generic as opposed to those in black-and-white which illustrate specific points made in the article content.
  • A bit fussy, but since I am mentioning problems: the second color image View from Mohave Point of the Colorado River flowing through the Grand Canyon is probably showing air pollution haze which would not have been present in Irataba's time. Also: the caption mentions Mohave Point but the file description says Pina Point. Looking here I see the two are two miles apart.
  • The image Mohave woman by a ramada, or open thatch-covered shelter, c. 1900 belongs to the Early life section where ramadas are mentioned
  • The image A Mohave funeral pyre, c. 1902 belongs to the Disgrace and death section which mentions the tradition of burning body, hut, and belongings.

For these reasons, I suggest removing the color images and moving the two black-and-white images mentioned. --Mirokado (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are great suggestions, thanks! Completed here Rationalobserver (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
And thanks to you for the quick response. The left/right disposition may need a bit of tweaking, that is best done after looking at the article several times, thinking a bit and fine-tuning at leisure. --Mirokado (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Speaking of images, I know that Mirokado has suggested alternate wording for the infobox caption, but how about something like "Irataba as depicted in 1864"? I don't like "February 1864", because its meaning is unclear.-RHM22 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    That would work well, I think: good suggestion. --Mirokado (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

I learned quite a bit from this article! It's well done overall, but I do have a few comments and suggestions, organized by section.

Lede: "This elicited a stern response from the US War Department, who in..." I think that the War Department should probably not be referenced as a person. In other words, "...from the US War Department, which in..." would probably be preferable.

Early life: "Irataba or Yara tav, from the Mohave eecheeyara tav, meaning "beautiful bird"..." Maybe you could include "meaning "beautiful bird"" inside parentheses rather than between commas? I think it would help make the sentence a little easier to digest.

Early life: Another point that I must bring up is the quote about dreams here. I know you've addressed it above, but I think it should probably be removed for now, since it has no clear relevance to the subject. If you had some information about how Irataba had some significant dream or vision, then such a quote would be useful in the context of that. However, as it is, it doesn't really belong in this article, regrettably.

Adulthood: Do you think that you could include a sentence or two about Irataba's involvement in these war parties? As it stands now, this section suffers a similar problem as the quote in the previous section. I know that Irataba was a Mohave and that the Mohaves were warlike, but how does that relate specifically to Irataba?

Contact with European Americans: Is J.C. Ives the same person as Joseph Christmas Ives? Some of the chronology of the latter seems to conflict, so maybe not. If it is, he could be linked.

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: "Around 2 p.m. on August 30, the emigrants working near the river were attacked by approximately three hundred Mohave warriors, who let out terrifying "war whoops" as they sent arrows flying into the camp." Where does the phrase "war whoops" come from? Was that a quote from someone involved? If so, could you add something along the lines of "...who according to X, let out terrifying "war whoops"..."?

Rose-Bailey Party Massacre: Do you think that the bit about the comet is relevant here? I was thinking that maybe it should be relegated to the notes, since it doesn't really seem pertinent to Irataba or the attack on the party.

Fort Mohave: "...the US War Department decided to establish a military fort at Beale's Crossing..." how about "...the US War Department established a military fort at Beale's Crossing..."? I just think that reads a bit nicer.

Fort Mohave: "vice versa" probably doesn't need to be italicized, as an expression quite common to English.

That's it from me! The writing is very nice overall, so I don't really have any other suggestions besides the above. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, RHM22. I've made an edit that adopts your great suggestions! Please let me know if I missed anything, or if there is anything else you think I should do. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Ok, it looks good enough for me. I'd like to see something in there about how Irataba was involved in the war parties described, but if there's nothing available, then it's acceptable as-is, in my opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, RHM22. I'm not aware of any sources other than Waters that put Irataba in the context of war parties, but I'll keep looking. Rationalobserver (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I added this, which speaks indirectly to the point. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Rationalobserver: It looks good. Since you don't know of any precise information relating to Irataba as a warrior, I think that what do you have helps to avoid that non-sequitur effect, which sometimes removes the reader from the narrative and makes them wonder why it's relevant. It would still be better if there were some sort of direct correlation, but since you don't have the information to state that explicitly, I'd say it's just fine as it is. Thank you for considering my suggestions and working them into the article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Today I ordered a copy of a 1970 doctoral dissertation by Fulsom Charles Scrivner that includes a chapter about Cairook and Irataba, so hopefully that source will allow me to tie-in this point and others, such as the importance of dreams to Mohave. Thanks a lot for your review and encouragement! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Great! More good information is always better. I hope you will be able to expand a bit upon his early tribal life. Please ping me whenever you'd like me to come and take a look.-RHM22 (talk) 00:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by John[edit]

On first look it's going to be an oppose from me, just on prose. That's without getting past the lead yet. What is a "principle chief"? --John (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

See Principal Chiefs of the Cherokee. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, so it should be "principal chief" then. "Principle" and "principal" are different words with different meanings. I think there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article. --John (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm dyslexic, so I sometimes do silly stuff like that. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was misspelled even in your comment. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#Supporting and opposing "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."(original emphasis) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If "there are a lot of problems like this throughout the article" it won't be hard for you to list a few specific examples. If you don't your oppose is meaningless. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. The article should not have been submitted to FAC in this state. I recommend a rewrite and a resubmission after this is done. FAC is not the place to have your article improved. --John (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Nor is it the place to enact revenge for your buddies! Rationalobserver (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Can everyone please keep this sort of nonsense out of here? John is correct that FAC isn't meant as a forum for general article improvement, although almost all submissions do require touchups before passing. The FAC coordinators will decide how much weight to give reviews and comments, so there's no need for accusations and other claptrap that is better reserved for other sections of this website.-RHM22 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I apologize. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Mark Oliphant[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Mark Oliphant, an Australian scientist who played a key role in the development of radar and nuclear weapons during World War II. He is credited with the discovery or co-discovery of deuterium, tritium, helium-3 and nuclear fusion. Regrettably, he is not as well known as he should be. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN1: I know this is the format that NLA gives, but it's redundant
  • FN2, 37: title should use endash
  • Find-A-Grave is not a reliable source
  • FN74: ABC is not a work, it's a publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the second point. They seem to already use the endash. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • They're both displaying as hyphens for me (the latter is now FN36) - I would fix myself but they're both {{cite DOI}} so I'm not sure how to get at the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, they probably shouldn't be using {{cite DOI}}, given the message at the top of its documentation page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    • A gnome went around creating {{cite DOI}} templates at one point. I wasn't happy, because they caused formatting problems, particularly with the author links. Replaced both with {{cite journal}}. And corrected the endashes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

Comments from FunkMonk

  • I'm not a fungus expert, but I've reviewed a few fungus GANs, so will make some comments as a "layreader"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last half of the articles, there are a lot of single sentence paragraph, is it possible to merge some of these? Looks a bit fragmentary/disjointed now.
  • There are three or more "introduction" sentences in the beginning of some sections that end without citations, but they should probably have citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, was offline over the weekend. I'll see how I can integrate your comments this evening – thanks anyway! Tylototriton (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Merged some paragraphs in the "Chemistry" and two other small sections.
However, after reviewing, I do not see where an introductory sentence in a section would need citations. They are merely "wrappers", and the facts they contain are all backed up through citations later on in the respective section. Could you give me an example where you think a citation is necessary? Tylototriton (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, in FAs, it is best to have citations after every paragraph to be safe, including "wrappers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Blackrock (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an independent Australian film that was inspired by the murder of Leigh Leigh (which is a previous successful FAC nomination of mine). Freikorp (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately captioned and licensed (one fair-use). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC) IJReid (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a dinosaur which was only known from a pair of giant arms since 1965, and remained a scientific mystery until more fossils were described just last year. This setup was greatly paid off by just how bizarre the animal turned out to be; a humpbacked, duckbilled, ostrich-dinosaur... With enormous hands. Since only three specimens are known, their history is described in detail, and all important sources about the animal have been cited. Since the true nature of this dinosaur was revealed so recently, most available images only show the original pair of arms, spiced up with a few additional images created in the last few months. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The articles is pretty good, but it needs to be clarified a little bit. A few of the terms may be confusing by some peoples standards. Also, the article does not make clear whether Deinocheirus is an herbivore or a carnivore, though it implies Deinocheirus might be an herbivore. I think that that information should be added. Gug01 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for comment, could you list which terms that need clarification? And the article mentions several times that the animal was an omnivore, therefore neither. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Hypothetical_Deinocheirus.jpg: what is the basis of this image? Same with File:Map_mn_umnugobi_aimag.png, File:TarbosaurusDB.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The first one is based on a skeletal restoration in a 2014 scientific paper, I'll reference it in the file description. The Tarbosaurus image should be based on a skeletal restoration of that animal, but I'm not the author of the image, so cannot point to the exact publication. What do you mean about what the map is based on? FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • How did the creator know where to put the borders? Was it based on a previously existing map? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, IJReid could you take a look at adding the 2014 ref to the restoeration, then I'll see if I can find a more "official" source for map location. Perhaps even a map form a scientific paper... FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Done, although commons doesn't seem to have any more than a single author parameter. IJReid discuss 15:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I found a much more relevant map in this free scientific paper[2], showing the location of the formation itself, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I Ching[edit]

Nominator(s): Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I've rewritten this article on one of China's most difficult and storied classic texts. A top priority article in the China, Philosophy, and East Asia WikiProjects. Would be pleased to hear all comments. Shii (tock) 18:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment(s) from Gaff

There is a problem with citation to Marshall 2001: Marshall 2001, p. 50-66. Harv error: link from #CITEREFMarshall2001 doesn't point to any citation. --Gaff (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed this, thank you Shii (tock) 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Image review by --Gaff (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

To get expert input, I've requested and received some comments on this article via email from S. Marshall, author of [Marshall 2001]. I've already edited the page to respond to his points, except for three:

  • He insists that Zhouyi is one word and not Zhou yi (other sources seem to disagree)
  • He has some complaint with the description of changeable lines; I've asked for more details on this (He has now written back and confirmed that there is no WP:RS that would back up this specific complaint.)
  • He thinks more space should be devoted to how completely modern scholarship has overturned earlier views. I will have to look into this. Attempted to address this here.

Shii (tock) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Just now saw that this is an FAC, excuse my tardiness.
I'm not sure why we are paying any attention to what Marshall has to say on this article... He's certainly not an expert on the subject in the eyes of anyone but himself, and I don't think any serious sinologist would cite his work. I'm concerned that Shii has been citing his 2001 work, which I don't think is a wise choice (see David Pankenier's review of this book). I know sinology isn't your main field, Shii, so please feel free to get input on sinological works' validity and reliability from editors like User:Kanguole and myself who are more familiar with that area.  White Whirlwind  咨  20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I asked him simply because his email was readily available. As you can see from the resulting edits, he had a number of simple, factual criticisms to make which I generally found were backed up by sources, and I believe the article is better for it. Looking forward to your own comments. Shii (tock) 21:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Shii (talk · contribs), I've got some down time at work today and am going through the article making some revisions and comments. I'll post them here when I'm finished, probably just in a large bulleted list.  White Whirlwind  咨  18:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Textual Review by WhiteWhirlwind
I'm going to do these in bullet form, I hope it's not too difficult to follow along.
  • "The I Ching"
    • at some point in the future this will be needed to be changed to Yi jing, I know a lot of sources still use the Wade-Giles spelling, but no reputable publication would do so in 2015.
      • I am going off the book titles for now, e.g. Redmond & Hon 2014, Shaughnessy 2012, Shaughnessy 2014 all show this is the common name Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "/ˈiː ˈdʒɪŋ/"
    • I've never understood why we consider Random House Webster's to be an acceptable source for (often crappy) pronunciation of non-native English terms. In any case, this should be changed to standard Mandarin "/ˈiː ˈtɕiŋ/".
      • Man... who did this? Maybe I left this over from the pre-rewrite version. Fixed Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • 1st paragraph of lead
    • I know I rewrote part of this, but I just want to say this is an excellent paragraph.
  • 2nd paragraph of lead
    • I'd rephrase this to "...produces six apparently random numbers between 6 and 9. These numbers are turned into..." Better flow
  • " of the readings found in the I Ching is the matter of centuries of debate"
    • Grammar error
  • Section headings
    • I'm on the record as against section headings where editors try to get cute and finesse things, like "The divination text: Zhou yi". I try to stick to simple ones like "History", "Content", "Influences", etc. Not a deal breaker, just my opinion.
      • I agree that the section heading might be changed, but FWIW I provided a list of 8 sources that distinguish between Zhou yi and Yijing -- basically all of the sources used in the article. Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "decision-making"
    • Wikipedia editors have chosen to eschew this sort of hyphenation, just space it
  • "the Changes of Zhou or Zhou yi.(Chinese: 周易; pinyin: Zhōuyì)."
    • This is a bit of a mess here. I recommend "Changes of Zhou (Zhou yi 周易)", which is standard in sinology but has traditionally been less common in WP articles. Either adopt my suggestion or just clean up the periods/parentheses a bit.
      • Done. Will address the next two thirds of this tomorrow Shii (tock) 08:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The name Zhou yi means a book of "changes" (Chinese: 易; pinyin: Yì) used during the Zhou dynasty"
    • I mean, not really – it just means "Changes of Zhou".
      • Alternate wording offered Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • " Feng Youlan proposed that the word for "changes" originally meant "easy""
    • Two things here: 1) check and see which is more common, this form or "Fung Yu-lan", I seem to see the latter more often and I think it's the one Feng used in his lifetime. 2) You have no source for this sentence, so if you're not quoting anything either consider adding that this may be influenced by the modern meaning of yi 易 as "easy", which is common in most dialects. If you're going to say something like "there is little evidence for this", you should probably have a reliable citation.
      • The citations are at the end of the paragraph Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Zhou yi is attributed to the legendary world ruler Fu Xi."
    • This phrasing makes it sound like a present day situation. I'd rephrase to something like "The Changes were traditionally attributed to the legendary..."
      • Alternate wording offered Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The basic unit of the Zhou yi is the hexagram (六十四卦 liùshísì guà),"
    • The term liushisi gua 六十四卦 refers to the "64 hexagrams" as a whole, single hexagrams are just gua (as are trigrams).
  • "(彖 tuàn),[note 1]", "The word tuan (彖) refers to a four-legged animal similar to a pig. It is not known why this word was used, and it is possible that it is a homonym for an unknown word. The modern word for a hexagram statement is guàcí (卦辭). (Rutt 1996, pp. 122–3)"
    • I have no idea why Rutt would write this and not mention that tuan is usually glossed as a loan for duan 斷 "decision". (Knechtges 2014: 1881 notes this, I'm surprised you missed it). I haven't found any mainstream reviews of this book, and I've never heard any scholar mention or appraise it as a good work. Not sure I would cite from it.
      • Changed. Rutt is cited as the single best translation by Redmond & Hon 2014, part of a series published by Oxford University Press and the American Academy of Religion. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Ok, I see. I'm not sure how I feel about that attribution... Hon and Redmond (the latter I've never even heard of, and he doesn't seem to be a great expert on the subject) aren't what I would call Yi experts, and this wouldn't be the first time a major press published a dud. Unfortunately, this Hon and Redmond book only came out in October 2014, and so there aren't any reviews of it out yet. I'm curious to see how the expert reviewers appraise it. My local university library doesn't have this book yet, and I have no quasi-legal e-version of it like I do for many Chinese topics (doesn't leave the room, Shii).  White Whirlwind  咨  02:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I am aware of the need to be cautious with these books, but Hon is the author of The Yijing and Chinese Politics: classical commentary and literati activism in the northern Song Period (SUNY Press) which was widely reviewed and cited. The book has received several positive blurbs from Sinologists, here. Shii (tock) 03:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, I saw those reviews on the OUP site. Those are the standard blurbs from author friends, I'm more interested in seeing the published reviews in major journals. Those tend to be more honest.  White Whirlwind  咨  19:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The book opens with the first hexagram statement, yuán hēng lì zhēn (元亨利貞)."
    • This has proven a very tricky phrase (maybe phrases?) to interpret over the centuries, but I think Shaughnessy (2014) has the best discussion of it. I'd summarize what he says.
      • Will need to go back to the library tomorrow for this. Shii (tock) 20:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Done Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ", but in five cases (2, 9, 26, 61, and 63) an unrelated character of unclear purpose."
    • You're missing a verb somewhere in here.
      • I thought this was grammatical, but since it's unclear I added a word Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Zuo zhuan and Guoyu contain the oldest descriptions of divination using the Zhou yi."
    • Consider including translations here, like "Zuo Commentary (Zuo zhuan)", or at least a descriptor like "ancient narratives".
  • "In the Zuo zhuan stories..."
    • I think this entire paragraph is unnecessary and should be deleted.
      • I added it because of the long descriptions of "changeable lines" in previous revisions of the page, making me think this was an important topic. You can delete it if you want Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 136 BC, Emperor Wu of Han named the Zhou yi "the first among the classics","
    • Citation needed.
      • This is something I worked on for a while. Eventually I got a good source in Smith 2008. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "and the Shuogua attributes to the symbolic function of the hexagrams the ability to understand self, world, and destiny."
    • This is the first and only time you mention the Shuogua – you'd need to introduce it if you intend to keep this clause in the article.
      • Not sure what introduction is necessary other than "one of the ten wings"? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Japanese word for "metaphysics", keijijōgaku (形而上学; pinyin: xíng ér shàng xué) is derived from a statement found in the Great Commentary that "what is above form [xíng ér shàng] is called Dao; what is under form is called a tool".[44] The word has also been borrowed into Korean and re-borrowed back into Chinese."
    • This probably isn't necessary and can be deleted. I'm not sure that source is reliable, in any case.
      • I think it's a non-trivial explanation of the value of the Ten Wings, but it is a bit wordy and the source is not the most reliable. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The I Ching was not included in the burning of the Confucian classics, and textual evidence strongly suggests that Confucius did not consider the Zhou yi a "classic"."
    • Citation needed
      • Shchutskii 1979 and Smith 2012, as given Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "During the Eastern Han, I Ching interpretation divided into two schools...."
    • In the following sentence, you need to introduce the two, such as: "The first school, known as New Text criticism, sought to..." and similarly with the Old Text pai.
  • "Only short excerpts survive,"
    • The term "fragments" is generally used in this context in sinology
  • "At the beginning of the Tang dynasty, Kong Yingda was tasked with creating a canonical edition of the I Ching."
    • By whom?
  • "One was the yili xue (義理學, "principle study") approach, which was based on literalistic and moralistic principles. The other approach, taken by Shao Yong, was the xiangshu xue (象數學, "image-number study") approach, "
    • You need to italicize foreign terms like yili xue. I'd actually rearrange like this: "..."principle study" (yílǐ xué 義理學) approach..." The last sentence of this paragraph needs a citation, too.
      • This was added by someone else. It appears to be a confused duplication of the Han section so I will remove it. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1557, the Korean Yi Hwang..."
    • Some title/descriptor needs to go between "Korean" and "Yi Hwang", this reads strangely as is.
  • "...was later taken up in China by Zhang Zhidong."
    • A descriptor like "Qing scholar and official" would be good here
  • Early European
    • This is a nicely written section. Good job.
  • "as described in China's most ancient histories, in the 300 BC Great Commentary, and later in the Huainanzi and the Lunheng."
    • "most ancient histories" is a bit awkward here, since that term is debatable in and of itself.
      • I mean "histories" as in a genre of non-fiction writing... maybe a better term can be suggested? Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In East Asia, besides its widespread use in divination, "
    • I believe I mentioned this previously, but Yijing divination is actually not at all common in East Asia anymore, and hasn't been for quite a long time.
      • Indeed, I rewrote the section above it accordingly. I meant "widespread throughout history" but I'll just remove the adjective. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "it had notable impact on 1960s counterculture figures such as Carl Jung, Philip K. Dick, John Cage, and Bob Dylan."
  • " Richard Rutt's 1996 translation incorporated much of the new archaeological and philological discoveries of the 20th century, and it is considered the most accurate available in English."
    • Citation really needed. I almost winced when I read that. I'd delete this entire sentence.
      • Citation is provided, it is Redmond & Hon 2014 Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Translations
    • How did you determine which were "the most notable English translations"? I have an MA in Classical Chinese language and literature and have never heard of a number of these, such as Pearson's weird "feminist translation" and the Wu translation.
      • Various contributors to the article added these. Some list of most notable translations is necessary for an article about a book... Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Of course. I'd stick to the ones Knechtges mentions, including Rutt (1996) ....  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid I've just started a study abroad and can't get access to that Knechtges volume anymore. Would you be willing to clean up the list of translations for me? Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes, I can. Take a look at Kanguole (talk · contribs)'s note on the below bullet, if you haven't already.  White Whirlwind  咨  21:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Marshall (2001)
    • I'd recommend deleting this as a source and any references thereunto. I can't find any serious sinological studies that cite it, and David Pankenier's review of it is pretty damning.
      • It doesn't really matter and the source can certainly be removed if the claims attributed to it are unusual, but it is cited in both Redmond & Hon 2014 and in Rutt 1996. Shii (tock) 21:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not convinced that those two works' citation of Marshall (2001) necessarily carries any weight. There are random Daoist blogs that cite them, too. The fact that Knechtges and Shaughnessy (two vastly more well known scholars than Hon) don't mention it is telling. I'd like to get a look at this Hon & Redmond book so I can form some kind of appraisal of it. I have a basic knowledge of Hon, and the problem is that his specialty is not classical works or philology, it's modern and late Imperial stuff, and that gives me a bit of pause in giving weight to his works on this subject.  White Whirlwind  咨  23:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Sure, we can put this off until you get a look at the Redmond book -- I think you'll find it fairly discriminate, and I expect positive reviews in academic journals when they do come out. Marshall 2001 is currently used only for the very vague statement about dating the events being referenced to. I'm not sure where to go for an alternate source for that, but I'm sure one can be located. Shii (tock) 20:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
            • I very much doubt there's an alternative source for that, since it refers to Marshall's own hypothesis that hexagram 55 refers to an eclipse observed at the Zhou city of Feng, that this eclipse occurred in the year of the conquest of the Shang, and that this was an eclipse known from astronomical calculations to have occurred on 20 June 1070 BC. No-one else seems to take this seriously. Pankenier's review demolishes the argument, and most authors now favour a date of 1046 or 1045 for the conquest. Kanguole 02:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
              • Kanguole (talk · contribs), White whirlwind (talk · contribs): I've removed all references to Marshall, replacing them with Shaughnessy where appropriate. Hope this resolves the certainly legitimate concerns you've raised. Shii (tock) 22:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
                • You've kept The Zhou yi itself shares some of its features with even older Shang dynasty analysis of oracle bones. I didn't see this in Shaughnessy 2014. He does mention that some oracle bones associated with the predynastic Zhou include groups of 3 or 6 numerals, which several scholars link to the trigrams and hexagrams, but I see no justification for a link with Shang divination. Thus illustrating the section with an image of a Shang divination is also misleading. Kanguole 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
                  • I was basing this off of the following specific statement: "although there were numerous developments in the conduct of divination, certain features remained constant throughout ancient Chinese history and the various media used to divine." Shii (tock) 08:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope this has been helpful. Let me know if you have any questions.  White Whirlwind  咨  22:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


My objections mainly because the "Influence" section is too short, I understand there's a main article I Ching's influence, but that article aloso had same problem, far from what it's should be, and lot sentence without source. Also I have some concern about the selection, I mean why Carl Jung listed, according to the article I Ching's influence, "Psychologist Carl Jung wrote a forward to the Wilhelm–Baynes translation of the I Ching", also no source to follow, I just feel that wrote a forward to some translation doesn't count for "notable impact", we don't know what he wrote, and how's I Ching really impact his life, his professional or personal opinion.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Jarodalien: Please note that this is not an FAC for I Ching's influence but for I Ching. I have expanded the "Influence" section and added a quote from Jung, is this what you wanted? If not, please be more specific. Shii (tock) 20:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I understand this is not FAC for I Ching's influence, so just like I said before, "mainly because the "Influence" section is too short". Meanwhile, normally sections with {{main}} template, means this section is only an epitome for that article, just like lead section. But even when I consider this, this section are still too short. For example, I think it should mention the influence for divination, at mainland China, there's been a long history for people using I Ching to predict their future, choosing graveyard, homestead, (influence with Feng shui), even their spouse (with influence of "Bazi", calculate by people's birthday and exactly time), those influence also effect other country or continent. For as far as I know, there's still least tens of thousands people practicing Hexagram or Bagua for living (for a street that 3 blocks from my home, there's least 15 blind people do this, because some people lives here believe, when people lost their eyesight - normally born that way, cause by accident doesn't count. - for somehow they could open "another eye" to look into your future). My English is very poor, hope doesn't cause any misunderstanding.--Jarodalien (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Between you and White_whirlwind, who says the I Ching is no longer widely used in China, opinion is evenly divided. I have found it best to remain silent when the sources have so little to say about modern use of the I Ching. Sorry this makes you reject my work entirely. I wish I could find something better to say in that section. Shii (tock) 07:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about my opinion makes you feel that I "reject" your "work entirely", so I switch to Comment, hope that helps. Maybe I Ching "is no longer widely used in China" like used to be, but their influence still strong, especially places less developed. Maybe I feel this way mainly because I live here, like we had a old saying "当局者迷", means when someone get involved, there's big chance they couldn't seen the whole picture. So, this is just my opinion, you already done a excellent job to writing this article, I only feel there's some place could been better.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I personally think your anecdotal evidence makes perfect sense. In Japan, blind people have similar social roles. I just can't find a good source to attest to it. I will keep looking... Shii (tock) 10:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images. -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

This is done, except for the hexagrams, for which I'm not sure alt text is possible Shii (tock) 20:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

SMS Dresden (1907)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Another German light cruiser, this one joined von Spee's squadron following the outbreak of WWI, and it was the only survivor of the Battle of the Falkland Islands in Dec. 1914. This ship was eventually tracked down and forced to scuttle at the Battle of Más a Tierra on 14 March 1915. You might note that the centenary of the sinking is a little more than a month away - I'd very much like to have the article through FAC in time to run on the centenary if at all possible. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. Parsecboy wanted to go ahead and nominate this, since an anniversary is coming up ... and that makes sense to me. All issues have been dealt with at A-class, and I expect it to pass A-class shortly. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Now passed A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 10:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

A couple of prose issues Support: all the issues below have been addressed. They cover everything I found right to the bottom of the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC) Nothing serious, but a few things stuck out.

  • "SMS Dresden ("His Majesty's Ship Dresden")[a] was the lead ship of her class, built for the Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine)."
Are we putting the translations to English in the parens, or the German? The rest of the article puts English in the parens, so I'd suggest the same here.
A good catch - I had forgotten to fix this when I rewrote the article.
Generally I found this statement to be a bit odd. Is it no more like "SMS Dresden ("His Majesty's Ship Dresden")[a] was a German Imperial Navy ship, the lead ship of her class."
Yeah, that's a good point - see how it's worded now.
  • "She had one sister ship, Emden."
Could this be combined with the former statement? A two-ship class doesn't seem to deserve three links.
Just cut it altogether - it's really not all that relevant to this article (or at least shouldn't be in the lead).
  • " twelve coal-fired Marine-type water-tube boilers."
Is Marine a proper name? If not, should it be lower case? Is this referring to the Kaiserliche Marine, and thus a specific type? If so, I'd like to see a link here, or some explanation of what it is.
Another leftover from the old version - Gröner always refers to them as Marine-type boilers, which seems to have been a translation error - it should probably have been translated as "naval boiler" (which basically means water-tube boiler)
  • "Dresden thereafter joined the reconnaissance force"
then instead of thereafter?
Sounds fine to me.
  • "She made it back to Kiel, where repairs were effected.[6] The repair work took eight days"
She made it to Kiel where she spent the next eight days being repaired."
Yeah, I wasn't really fond of how that turned out, but when I was writing it I couldn't think of a way to split the sentence for the citations, as the NYT article covered the fact that the repairs were in Kiel, and HRS covered the length of time it took - see how it's worded now.
  • "Regardless, von Spee and those who favored the attack on the Falklands won the argument.[32]"
There are five ships and four captains (three plus admiral perhaps?) have been mentioned. Am I incorrect in thinking "those who favored" means the captain of either Scharnhorst or Gneisenau? I found this bit a little confusing.
A good point - yes, the captains of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were the ones who supported Spee in attacking the island.

That's it! It makes for exciting reading. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed.
  • Some of the images are a bit small to use at default size - can we enlarge them?
    • I have my defaults set at 300px - which ones in particular were you thinking?
      • The line drawing and the first two maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I forced the line-drawing and the second map to 300px, since those both looked fine on my screen as is, and the first map to 500px - how does that look? Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Dresden_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
    • Cut the dead link - the citation to Jane's has been improved and should be sufficient.
  • File:Escadre_allemande_d'Extrême-Orient_1914_1915-de.svg: what is the source of the information presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Please add alt text for all images (only one currently has it). -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Added. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


Why was the article moved over into American English? This version seems to use UK ("metres") and thus WP:RETAIN would suggest keeping it there. --John (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The first version had "paralyzing" instead of "paralysing", which is AmEng. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that. The language of the guideline has the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default (my emphasis) and I suppose it's a judgement call what constitutes a stub. I wouldn't oppose over this I don't think. I am still reading the whole thing. Nice work. --John (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There's no real hard-and-fast threshold for where an article becomes Start-class, but the limit for DYK is 1,500 characters, and the initial version was slightly over 2,000. WP:STUB says "A stub is an article containing only one or a few sentences of text..." - which the initial version easily surpasses. Thanks, John. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I made a few slight adjustments. I may have a couple of questions before I support. It is looking good. --John (talk) 00:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Convert meter ranges to yards, not feet.
  • When I was researching the Otranto article, the biography of the ship that I looked at made no reference to any hits on that ship, despite German reports. There's also no mention of any hit in the ship's log.
  • Still like to see some references to the Warship International article on the hunt for the ship that I mentioned earlier.
  • Suggest combining these two sentences: Meanwhile, the Royal Navy had deployed a pair of battlecruisers, Invincible and Inflexible, to hunt down the German squadron. The British ships were commanded by Vice Admiral Doveton Sturdee.
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, considered an artistic pinnacle of thrash metal. The band would experience increased popularity afterwards, becoming heavy metal's leading act in the 1990s. This record is subject of many musical analysis about the roots of extreme metal and its further development.--Retrohead (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I'm not much of a music guy, but I recall being impressed by this article when I first encountered it (at DYK?) and it's only got better since then. I made two entirely trivial edits. The prose is wonderful; like the last time I read it, makes me actually want to listen to a metal album. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nergaal

  • I think the intro should mention some of the most notable tracks
  • "in 2006 by playing it in its entirety." → where? during a single concert?
  • "musicianship" is this a real word?
    • Yes, it is—it means the technical quality of one's playing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "on signing Metallica" mention year
    • You mean when Alago signed the band? 1984, mentioned in the background.
  • "The original artwork was sold at Rockefeller Plaza, New York City for $28,000" when?
    • In 2008, added.
  • "The album was recorded with the following equipment:" if you use ":" why is everything after it split by "."s?
    • Corrected, used semicolon instead.
  • "in the sense of "assault and battery"." says who?
  • "at 220 beats per minute" is this a lot?
    • Compared to today's mainstream music, incomparably faster.
  • "off-kilter 5/8 time signature on each fourth bar" what do kilter and bar mean?
    • Off–kilter means unbalanced or awry. Bar measures a small amount of time in written music.
  • " two-and-a-helf "
    • Corrected.
  • in "Music and lyrics" why did you have each paragraph cover 2 songs instead of 1? also, this section should have linkers like "the first/second/third/nth song"
    • Largely because the songs are not equally covered. You have "Disposable Heroes" in three sentences and "Battery" in five, so I tried each paragraph to contain similar quantum of information.
  • "1986 is" never start with a number
    • You mean the sentence shouldn't begin with a year? I've seen many FAs with sentence structures such as this.
  • accolades section should mention the years when the lists were put together
    • The publishing dates are visible in the reference templates. I think mentioning them in the prose is going to make the text tedious.
  • "Professional ratings" table is a bit short imo
    • I decided to omit receptions such as "favorable/unfavorable" because they seem variable from reader to reader. Spin, Rolling Stone, and BBC Music don't feature ratings, and that's why they are omitted from the table.
  • the last part of the 2nd para in "Commercial performance" should probably be moved into the accolades/critics section
    • Could fit there, but since it discusses the impact of "thrash metal's first platinum album", it's per se connected to the commercial performance.
  • this section could perhaps list the countries where the album ranked
    • The countries are listed in 'Charts'. It would seem repetitive listing them on two places.
  • "Metallica Through the Never" mention year pls
    • Year added.
  • "crosses were rising from the stage during the song" → add reminsicent of the album's cover art
    • Done.
  • "after having been retired for a number of years" why? I thought that MoP is by far one of the most popular of their songs
    • "Battery", "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)", and "Damage, Inc." were retired, "Master of Puppets" was performed in shortened version.
  • charts list seems a bit surprisingly short imo. any year-end charts?
    • You have the positions per year in this diff. The album wasn't a notable commercial success in its initial years, but gained recognition after 1991.

Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Image check. File:Metallica - Master of Puppets cover.jpg has an acceptable non-free media rationale. File:Metallica - Master of Puppets.ogg and File:Metallica (1986) Welcome Home (Sanitarium) sample.ogg seem acceptable as well; I think that 3 is a bit borderline with the "minimal use", but acceptable. File:Kirk Hammett playing.jpg has an acceptable licence in Flickr, which has been already reviewed in Commons. Article check will follow. Cambalachero (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • More comments by Cambalachero: I will check section by section, and leave the intro for the end (as it must be a summary of everything else)
    • Background and recording section: I don't think that "musicianship" is the right word for that context. If it is the technical quality of the music, then it can not be "aggressive"; that's the style, not the quality (thrash metal, as any other genre, has good quality and bad quality performers). All the sentences with maintenance tags must be fixed. "Metallica was motivated" is a bit wordy, and lacks a reason: I would expect a sentence using that word to clarify why or what motivated someone to do something (if they wanted to make a well-received album just for the heck of it, then you may use the verb "want"). "Hetfield and Ulrich described the songwriting process as starting with "guitar riffs, assembled and reassembled until they start to sound like a song".": all quotations must have a footnote immediately afterwards. Question: did Mustaine tried to sue Metallica for the rights of "Leper Messiah", the logical consequence of his claim, or did it stay confined to things said to the press? (if it's the later, then it's fine as it's written). "and decided to record" is wordy. "Hammett recalled that the group was "just making another album" at the time and "had no idea that the record would have such a range of influence that it went on to have".": again, immediate reference after quotation. "The cover was designed by Metallica and Peter Mensch [add a comma] and painted by Don Brautigam" Cambalachero (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • First of all, thanks for the suggestions. I think Mustaine has not sued Metallica for using ideas of his own because those things are legally hard to prove. He hadn't done that with "The Four Horsemen" vs "The Mechanix", which is a more obvious copyright violation than this one. Summa summarum, it's just a speculation. I understand "musicianship" as a style of playing/performing, in our case, "aggressive" performance. I'm little puzzled by the "cn" tags because every information is sourced. For example, the first two sentences are sourced with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame biography, including the "aggressive musicianship and vitriolic lyricism". Instead of repeating the cite at two places, I used it at the end of the second. Other notes are under way.--Retrohead (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Mustaine couldn't have sued over the earlier songs, because he's credited for them and thus gets royalties (he couldn't legally block them from using the songs). With "Leper Messiah", assuming his claims are true, he'd have to have some kind of proof—a demo recording or something. If he doesn't, then all he can do is bitch in the press, which he sure loves to do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, I know that he's credited and receives royalties for his first songs with Metallica, so there's nothing to complain about (he's not the first guy who left a band and left behind songs written for it). That's why I asked about Leper Messiah, as being the uncredited author of a song sounds like something that could start a legal battle, if it could be proved; and if such a battle took place the article should have talked about it (featured articles must be comprehensive). But, as said, if it didn't go beyond the press, the current coverage is fine. As for the tags, I really don't understand what does "Metallica hired Q Prime's Cliff Burnstein and Peter Mensch" mean. What is Q Prime? It is not clear from the context, and I don't think it has anything to do with Star Trek... Cambalachero (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Music and lyrics" section. Comments such as "were considered" or "were praised" must detail who thinks those things. ""Battery" is about anger and refers to "battery" in the sense of "assault and battery"", can we rewrite that sentence without using the same word three times? It may be better to link Cocaine dependence than just cocaine, as it's more precise for the context. Cambalachero (talk) 13:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Critical reception" main section, I did not notice any problem. Cambalachero (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Accolades and legacy" section: you mentioned Megadeth, Slayer and Anthrax, and then said "these bands were being called the "Big Four" of thrash metal". Perhaps it is evident from context, but you should clarify that the fourth one is Metallica. Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Commercial performance" section: "Master of Puppets became thrash metal's first platinum album and by the early 1990s it successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal." Are we talking about Master of Puppets, or about Metallica? As for the early 1990s (not the mid-1980s), if I remember well the bands that "successfully challenged and redefined the mainstream of heavy metal" were bands like Pantera and Biohazzard, which redefined thrash metal even further; Metallica's black album was a huge success, but not one that redefined the whole of heavy metal as "Master of Pupets" did. Cambalachero (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Touring" section: There is a contradiction with the article about Cliff Burton. Here, it says that the driver was charged with manslaughter, there, it says that the driver was determined not at fault for the accident and no charges were brought against him. Which one was it? Besides, you may add File:Clifford Burton Memorial Stone At Crash Site.jpg to the section. Cambalachero (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Live performances" section: add a reference for the claim that "Master of Puppets" is the most played Metallica song (does someone keep the track of those details?) Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Lead section: "Many bands from all genres of heavy metal have covered the album's songs, including tribute albums." This seems something interesting to talk about, but it not mentioned later in the article. Perhaps you should add a new paragraph at the "Accolades and legacy" section, talking about this. Cambalachero (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've walked these halls, but let's give it a whirl. My main area of concern with this article is how accessible it is to the layperson. The GA review, which was a while ago, was carried out by another editor with good knowledge of cricket. I think I at least have provided sufficient wikilinks to help with this, but I'll let you judge for yourselves. This is a potential WikiCup nomination. Harrias talk 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

On first read through, this looks comprehensive and well written. Some comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • There is a lot of overlinking, particularly, but not exclusively, of players' names. I suggest running the script
    • Done, I think there is only one left, which I prefer to leave for clarity. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • At least one ref, 33, lacks a publisher
    • Fixed this. Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the point of redlinking previous final contest in 1993.
    • I was hoping it would be a blue link by now, but I haven't got to it! Removing the red link from the lead, but left it in the later section. Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that either "top-scored" or "recovered the innings" are grammatical
    • I have replaced these, hopefully the replacements work! Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I've addressed the (easy) two, and will have a look at the others later, when I've got a bit more time! Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No rush, it will give me time to find more nitpicks (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Despite losing regular wickets—I think you mean "Despite regularly losing wickets" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Same with "Australia lost regular wickets" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Good points, both changed. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You switch between numbers and words for wickets eg "205 for 5" but "201 for five". stick to one style Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Nice spot, it should all be consistent now. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • first team of either gender — "gender" applies to words, not people. Should be "of either sex" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Didn't know that. Fixed. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No further queries, so I've changed to support above. Nice to see an article about women's sport, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Shepseskare, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh, the fourth or fifth ruler of the Fifth Dynasty (2494–2345 BC) during the Old Kingdom period. Shepseskare lived in the mid 25th century BC and probably reigned a few months at the most. This article includes virtually everything that is known about this pharaoh and is part of an effort to improve all articles pertaining to pharaohs and pyramids of the 5th dynasty. It is my first FAC, all comments welcomed! P.S: the article has been promoted to GA on February 7th, 2015, I do not know why the GA icon does not show up.

Support. I reviewed for GAN and thought then that this impressively comprehensive article was suitable for FAC. Rereading it I remain of the view that it covers a little-known figure about as thoroughly as is possible; the prose reads admirably, the sources are wide-ranging and well cited, the balance is fine. This article far surpasses anything I can find elsewhere on the web, and I am happy to support. I imagine a spot-check of sources will be wanted if there is a consensus for promotion, and as I am going to the British Library today or tomorrow will carry one out. (Iry-Hor: the GA symbol shows all right on my machine: try clearing your cache.) Tim riley talk 07:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks I now see the icon. Let me know if you find anything new on Shepseskare during your British Library trip! Iry-Hor (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment You should simplify the Reign column of the infobox to something like "Uncertain; likely for less than a year or seven years in the 25th century BC". All that detail and citation doesn't belong in an infobox; move it to a footnote or two.—indopug (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok done! This indeed clarifies the infobox. Iry-Hor (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Please see the FAC instructions and avoid using transcluded "done" templates-- they cause problems in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Source spot check: I checked a 10% sample: refs 6a–b, 12, 26, 28a–c, 31a–b and 50. All absolutely fine. I haven't done the general source review as I find others are better at that task than I am. – Tim riley talk 14:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by RHM22[edit]

This is a nice article with much useful information about a very obscure subject (my favorite kind). It's nearly there, but I do have a few comments which I think are important to the quality of the article.

  • Lede section: "...and is likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..." This isn't really correct, since Shepseskare has been dead for over four millennia. Maybe change it to something like "...and was likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..." or "...was likely the owner of an unfinished pyramid..."
Ok! Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Lede section: "Fifth Dynasty" is used in the lede, while "5th Dynasty" is used in other parts of the article. Additionally, the capitalization varies throughout the article; sometimes "dynasty" is capitalized, and sometimes it's not. This needs to be standardized throughout the article. My suggestion would be to Capitalize, based on our article on the subject and the various Egyptology templates used.
I agree, it should all be capitalize now, as in "Fifth Dynasty". Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Historical sources: "...Remarkably, Shepseskare is..." I'd probably remove "remarkably" here.
Ok I have removed it. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Duration: This is worded strangely: "...had a reign of only between one to two years." First, "only" adds a bit of awkwardness before "between." Second, "to" would normally be "and" in this context. I suggest "...only reigned between one and two years."
Corrected! Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pyramid: This section describes Verner's team as "Czechoslovak archaeologists," while he is himself referred to as a "Czech Egyptologist" earlier. I know that Czechoslovakia existed at the time of the 1980 expedition, but it might be a good idea to reword it a little bit to make that clearer to readers who might be familiar. Something like "a Czechoslovakian archaeological team...", linking "Czechoslovakia" for the unfamiliar reader.
Good point, I have updated the sentence with a wikilink to Czechoslovakia. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • General comments: Nowhere in the body of the article does it say that Shepseskare was a pharaoh. Keeping in mind that the lede section is a summary and not an introduction, it is essential that everything in the lede be found also in the article. Once you've gone past the lede, the article seems to assume that the reader knows who Shepseskare is. Also, the lede and infobox are the only places in which the era of his reign (the 25th century BC) are given. The century doesn't need to be wikilinked, by the way.
I agree, I have added a small section "Identity" with references about him being a pharaoh of the Fifth Dynasty. Iry-Hor (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all that I found on my read-through, other than a few typos and such that I've corrected.-RHM22 (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I'm changing to support, as all of my concerns have been addressed. I would consider integrating the 'Identity' section into one of the two succeeding sections, as it is a bit small. However, as it is, I think it meets our standards of quality. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I merged the "Identity" subsection in the "Contemporaneous sources" one. It is now the first 2 sentences of the subsection. This looks better since there is little to say about his identity. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
That looks excellent. Very well done.-RHM22 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Great article. I also learned that Memphis is not where I thought it was... Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by A. Parrot[edit]

Source check

I've spot-checked the citations to every source available to me, including Shaw 2000, Clayton 1994, and the linked online sources. I found several irregularities.

  • The link for Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005 is a duplicate of the link to Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000.
Yes it is a mistake, I don't have an url link to "Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2005". I had copied the entry of "Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000" and then filled up with the details of the 2005 one when I wrote the article but forgot to remove the url. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Why does the link for the Kratovac source lead to a video of an AP report that doesn't involve Kratovac? Shouldn't it link to this, or something similar, instead?
All the AP report came out the same day and the same day as the video with Kratovac as the author so I put her up. I thought the video was nice to keep but I have now replaced the video by the link you provided. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Clayton citation should be page 61 rather than 60, unless the pagination of your copy is somehow off from mine by one page.
Well I have the book as a pdf and it is clearly p. 60 on the book. Note that it shows up as p. 61 in the pdf reader. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
That's odd. It's definitely 61 in my copy, but if it's just a pagination difference, it doesn't matter. A. Parrot (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What's the page number for the Redford 2001 citation?
Unfortunately I have not noted it when I had the book. However the book is an encyclopedia organized in articles and the articles are rather short. This one is a couple of pages long and, with the title, would be easy to find for any reader with the book. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the article title is missing. Which one was it? I suggest specifying the article's author, as well. The Morkot citation template in Eye of Ra is an example, if you're not familiar with how to specify chapter and author in an edited book. A. Parrot (talk)
This was due to an error of formating in the sfn template, so that the article name was not showing up. I have corrected this, the location is now visible, being the article "Fifth Dynasty" written by Hartwig Altenmuller. I have also located the page numbers and I have added those. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Verner 2000 transliterates but doesn't translate the inscription on the serpentine seal. (I can recognize the words "beloved of the gods… beloved of Hathor" in the transliteration, but my knowledge of Egyptian is so limited that I couldn't say with certainty that that's what it means.) Because translation of Egyptian requires such specialized knowledge, it would be preferable to find a source that does translate the text, although I know that may not be practical.
Yes Verner does not translate and I know of no source which does. The text is extremely simple, being a few words long, so I did the translation. I don't think this constitutes original research since the text has only four words that anyone with a bit of Egyptian can understand. Feel free to remove it if you prefer, but I think this would be a loss for the article. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I'll let it be. A. Parrot (talk)
  • The Lehner citations are kind of mixed up. Citation 30a (in the caption of the illustration of Abusir) should refer to p. 142, not 148. 30b and 30c should probably be consolidated with the current Citation 52, as they all belong in that 146–148 page range.
Done. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find support in my copy of Verner 2003 for Citation 33. Page 58 is nothing but a photo. More concerning, I can't find mention of Khau-Ptah anywhere in the book, so 33b needs a substitute ref. The sentence supported by 33a ends with a direct quotation that I assume is from 34, so it's probably best to have only one citation at the sentence's end.
Again it is a matter of edition: my page 57 is a photo but the p. 58 (i.e. probably your 59) is text, as in the Goog books version here. About 33b, I had put it for "his reign must have been very short" for which it provides a reference. I realize that this is in the context of the tomb of Khau-Ptah, however refs 43 and 44 both already indicate that Shepseskare's name is omitted in the tomb, thus referencing the first part of the sentence. I have reorganized the refs for the sentence but I have kept it. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay. The second-to-last sentence in the paragraph still concerns me, though, as it's not supported by a reference and isn't quite as obvious as the sentence that follows it. I'd be more comfortable if it were removed. The paragraph would still imply that Khau-Ptah's biography supports a short reign, without slipping into original research. A. Parrot (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A. Parrot Sorry for the delay, I have removed the sentence as you advocated. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Some sentences at the ends of paragraphs lack citations (the first paragraph of the Historical sources section and the second-to-last paragraph of Duration). I realize they're rather obvious statements, but it's best to have a source at the end of every paragraph.
Done, except for the second-to-last paragraph of Duration, I actually do not know what to put here: while we have refs stating that Shepseskare is not listed by Khau-Ptah and that Neferefre is, I don't have one reference stating that this Five-Dynasty account is more accurate than Manetho. Yet it is quite obvious. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is. That sentence can stay. A. Parrot (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please check over your other sources again, to make sure all the links go to the right place and that everything is cited to the right page. I know it's easy to make mistakes because you think there's something in the sources that isn't there, or is actually somewhere else. I had to re-check the citations for Eye of Ra about three times.

A. Parrot About Eye of Ra, you have 6 problems with the sfn template for refs 10, 14, 18, 22, 25, 28. You can see these thanks to a special script for this, see User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Iry-Hor (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm afraid I don't have time today to look over this article again, but I'll have time on the 16th to reply to you in detail. A. Parrot (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Other points
  • Should the lead section mention the alternate spelling "Shepseskara"? It's not a major difference, so I don't think it's absolutely necessary to include, but I thought I'd bring it up, especially as Verner uses it some of the time.
Done, I agree, I have added the alternate spelling in the lede. Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I know that Verner's views are going to predominate in this article, as he's done the most recent and detailed work on the pyramid site, and that attributing his hypotheses to him is better than omitting his name and treating them as fact. Nevertheless, the frequent mention of his name might give the reader the feeling that it's slanted toward his views. To avoid that impression, I've made some edits to avoid the repetition of his name, and I toned down some of the language about his disagreements with Kaplony (here). See what you think of my changes, and consider whether you might want to do more along the same lines. Not a necessity, just something to consider.
Good point and well done! Iry-Hor (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe I can support this article if the referencing flaws are cleared up. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I've looked at the new references for the image, and they all check out. Good work. A. Parrot (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • What is the source of the information presented in the map? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Sorry for the delay. The image is entirely similar to the plan of the Abusir necropolis given by Miroslav Verner in the following source[1]:

Verner, Miroslav (2000). "Who was Shepseskara, and when did he reign?". In Bárta, Miroslav; Krejčí, Jaromír. Abusir and Saqqara in the Year 2000. Prague: Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute. pp. 581–602. ISBN 978-80-85425-39-0.  See in particular p. 602. I added this ref to the picture caption. Iry-Hor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Added this info to the map's image as well for future re-users. Ideally all maps, graphs and other images depicting data should have source information (in theory at least). GermanJoe (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Verner 2000, p. 602.
It looks like everybody is supporting this as FA, so what next? Iry-Hor (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Iry-Hor: Once consensus is achieved, one of the FAC coordinators will come by and promote it. However, the process often takes quite a bit of time, so that plenty of consensus can be achieved. The reviewers might also request an image (already completed) or source review prior to promoting.-RHM22 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I am discovering the FAC process so I wasn't sure what to do next. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

Forest raven[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a familiar Australian bird...well not that well-studied really. While buffing up its relative (Australian raven) which is a featured article, I read alot about the forest raven. The article is shorter as less is known, however I think it is pretty comprehensive and can't see anything else to improve. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cas—can you note whether this will be a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - images are free, sample of accessable refs check out. Prose are tight, generally good to very good; have gone through with a light ce. A fine, well sourced and informed article. Ceoil (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thx - all good, just had to flick back one bit which causes confusion as "Australian raven" is only one of the three species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Corvus_tasmanicus_map2.jpg: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you would like a different/better map, with clear sourcing, let me know. --Gaff (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I might have a crack at will be redoing the map actually. I've done it for others. And adding the consensus distribution and ref. thanks for offering. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
update- have found a map of southeastern Australia and added range onto it. In article now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments from Gaff[edit]

Looks good overall. Most images are from one source, who may or may not be expert on bird identification. Given your report that there are no other corvids on the island, shouldn't be an issue. --Gaff (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • * I fixed the Stresemann citation, since "date=The Auk" seemed an idiosyncratic format.
  • Should the species synonyms be in the infobox?
Yes, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First read through, the second paragraph of the taxonomy section was confusing. I wasn't sure if we were talking about the forest raven, using synonyms, or other birds in Australia and Tasmania. Second read through, I get it. Maybe some copyedits here could make this section more clear. It is a confusing story, for certain, and you have done a great job getting the details in there, but there might be a way to make it flow more smoothly.
Have been looking at this - how's this then? I have switched the order of the first two sentences, so the para begins by pointing out that it is difficult to tell teh difference, which then helps explain why Gould only described one species initially Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Capitalization for little and Little raven is inconsistent. The first mention of Little Raven cannot be wikilinked as currently written, because it is split up "incorporating Little and Australian ravens". Consider rephrasing to allow an early wikilink in the text. I also like when the binomial is given with common name. That is how you (or somebody) did it in the little raven article: "little raven (Corvus mellori)" and "Australian raven (C. coronoides)". I don't know if that is a rule or just personal preference, but the scientist in me likes to see binomials.
Little should be lowercase here, was missed after the capitalisation wars. I've oscillated between listing binomial names alongside common names in articles. There are a few to add.....will do shortly and see how it looks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • C. cecilae is mentioned but not linked. Was this name subsequently discarded altogether? Please clarify.
It is the Torresian crow, though now it is Corvus orru Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
Maybe instead of "C. cecilae (crow)" you could link as "C. cecilae (crow)"? Looks odd that only the word crow is linked. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I think its better to list the name as I have done now - "crow" is not what is meant so spelt out Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Please spell out acronym IOC, as nonspecialist will not know what that is.
I have unabbreviated it to International Ornithological Committee Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This sentence seems odd, "As the climate was cooler and dryer, the aridity of central Australia split them entirely." Do you mean as the climate changed, it led to a split?
Yes, added "as the habitat between became inhospitable" hence leading to long term separation of the populations. Is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "wingspan between 91 and 113 cm " conversion needed? done. --Gaff (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Too much going on in this sentence? "Sexes have identical plumage, however the male is generally larger, although there is considerable overlap in size between individuals." Maybe "Sexes have identical plumage. Males are generally larger, although there is considerable overlap in size between individuals."
  • "blue-purple sheen" is it iridescent? Iridescence is a wonderful word.
Well, yeah, but "blue-purple sheen" is fewer syllables and means the same thing ..also never seen the word "iridescent" used with corvids.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough! --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The progression of eye color changes with age is perhaps given in too much detail in the lede. Consider shortening it there and keeping it long in the body of the article.
trimmed in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Use {{convert}} template on "The gap between the two populations is around 70 km, shrinking to 30 km at Dorrigo."
  • Wikilink "Mount Wellington" ??
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "sclerophyll forest" wikilink
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The map definitely needs improvement. Sounds like you are already on it. I would like to see the different populations mapped out.
  • "areas of 40 to 400 hectares have been recorded" -- unit conversions needed? Not sure on that one. I can check if you don't know.
to acres. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are no wikilinks in the entire first paragraph of Behaviour section, though some bird species mentioned for first time.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Does it matter that the citation style is inconsistent? <ref name="" />in most instances, then {{sfn}} in others. --Gaff (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I only use sfn for individual different pages or page ranges from a book, otherwsie we end up with an unnecessarily complex reference section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Makes some sense. I may ask you more about that in the future, for articles that I am building. --Gaff (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Relict raven redirects to Forest raven and is a common name for Corvus boreus source. Might be something to add, if not already there (I'm short on time right now, but see you have covered some of the Rowley work from 1970). --Gaff (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
There are still a few minor fixes still on my laundry list, which may or may not be helfpul in improving the article. There is also the discussion below about what exact detail should be in the lead and particularly the first sentence. In my opinion, that is a discussion perhaps best held at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds so that some overall guidelines can be reached. The current verbiage is in keeping with Featured Articles on similar species (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase). I am a newcomer to FA review, so the delegates will want to consider my vote accordingly. I have spot checked only a few references, but seemed okay. --Gaff (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maury[edit]

This is really very minor, but now's the time to address it. I have found that many articles on the wiki add meaningless jargon to appease a certain technical faction. In this article I can see this in the very first sentence, which contains the statement "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae". I don't think the target audience gives a crap about these two definitions, yet will be tempted to interrupt their reading to click-through to ensure they're not missing something important - and they aren't. These terms may be important to some bird nerds, but such stuff belongs in the body or sidebars and I suggest removing it. That's the first sentence, I'll give it a better read-over later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Just my 2 cents...In many instances, I completely agree that ledes are over detailed. (See also: "Mammals are a clade of endothermic amniotes") I do not think, however, that "is a passerine bird in the family Corvidae" is overly detailed. Just my bias, maybe hypocritically so... For comparison, I looked at the first 4 of the 137 featured bird articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Showcase and all have something similar. I'm only a minor bird nerd, having looked through a handful of field guides and read two books about crows. Even still, knowing passerines and corvids informs this article without creating too much distraction. But I can see your point... --Gaff (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, it's a fine line we tread withj jargon and accuracy. For instance, I'd love to change "corvidae" to "crow and raven family", however that loses accuracy (and I have been corrected previously) as the family contains jays, northern hemisphere magpies and nutcrackers. "passerine" is pretty broad and I think one linke to corvidae is not a big deal, especially when it says "family" right before it, so the reader who doesn't know the phrase gets an idea its a group of related organisms. I do want to eliminate as much jargon as possible though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
So this is a type of crow, right? Is there any reason to be more specific than that in the lede? We have a whole body to be specific in. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
we-ell it you consider to be a raven as a type of crow? or are both of equal "rank" as it were? A bit like horses and ponies really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)\
Precisely. And we have an entire article to flesh out that definition. And why do we still have the entirely useless term passerine in there? We may as well say it has wings. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
OTOH, I'd find it pointless to say "The forest raven is a bird" as that is patently obvious, and feel that "passerine bird" is more exacting and more educational to the reader as it helps define the critter more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
"Passerine bird" is not more exacting - a classification that includes half of all birds is less exacting that "raven". Your argument is precisely the sort of problem I'm talking about, jargon because it seems cool to include jargon and sound smart, when doing so actually lowers the readability of the article. I'm not talking about replacing this word with that, I'm talking about removing it all. If the reader can't figure out that this is an article about a bird, having them click through to passerine isn't going to fix that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Casliber here, it has nothing to do with "being cool" (why the weird accusations?) but is about accuracy. The intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, therefore info about classification has to be included. Otherwise it wouldn't be a summary, would it? It is the norm across animal articles to mention important parent taxa in the intro, "corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". There is already a Simple English Wikipedia, so we don't have to dumb this down to that level. There might be a point in "passerine" being so broad as to be pointless, though... FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

"corvid" is as much "jargon" as "equine", "feline", or "canid". Precisely my point. Do you really think that using the term "feline" in the intro improves the article compared to "cat"? If the reader hasn't heard the term they'll have to click on the link to find out something they already know. This is useless filler. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Then it would appear the intro of pretty much all animal articles are wrong in your opinion, which makes it a wider discussion that should be taken up at Wikiproject Tree of Life[3] or some such, not the FAC of a single article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Support from IJReid[edit]

This article is a very good read, and as I completed the GA review for the Australian raven, I believe I have learned a fair amount about the species and genus now. I would support this as a Featured Article, but I have two nitpicks. The caption of the first photograph outside of the lead starts with a lowercase, this should be uppercase. Also, the second paragraph of Taxonomy and naming is difficult to fully understand. It would be best to mention the names of the taxa rendered redundant to C. australis. Also, the reasoning the first revisor was required are not mentioned, and this might cause misinterpretations about the taxonomic history. In reply to Maury Markowitz, it is appropriate for the sentence to include "passerine", as raven is already mentioned, bird is much too general, and Corvidae is noted very soon after in the same sentence. IJReid discuss 03:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

well-spotted on the caption and fixed now. Will have a tweak on the para a bit later. thanks for the support. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I can't see much wrong with this. Just a few minor comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • As with the other two species of raven in Australia—although technically correct, given the taxonomic complexities I wonder if " other two species named as ravens..." might be better?
hmmm, to me that implies the names are less valid than other common names. The feather bases are used as a valid sorting tool in Australia, and the evolution supports the name split here between Australian ravens and crows....I think it also makes the flow a a litle awkward. Might pass on this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • perished of tuberculosis in 1778—what's wrong with "died" ?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • as evidenced by the forest raven only found in closed forest refuges on the mainland but a wider variety of habitats in Tasmania — I would add a "being" and an "in"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • the forest raven could be confused with the black currawong,— really?
my mother in law pointed at a pied currawong the other day and thought it was a magpie...after that I think anything's possible.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The call is considered the most reliable means of identification in areas where its range— subject of "its" is "call"
expanded instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Forest raven Vocalization"—in the audio caption, capitalisation looks odd
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Forest ravens fly from Tasmania and the mainland to islands well offshore in Bass Strait and may even traverse the strait entirely. It was…—"ravens…it"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Nothing else, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Hey Cas, long time no see–Please add alt text for all images. Good luck! -Newyorkadam (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord note[edit]

Just a reminder you'll need a source review, Cas. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


Tentative support on prose. Like to take one last look but it looks great so far. --John (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Two early science fiction magazines together in one article this time; the two have almost identical histories. These two were unusual in that they had no budget for fiction: the editor had to get his stories free from friends and acquaintances. Since his friends included several writers who would go on to become famous in sf, this worked out better than you might expect. The magazine also features some of Hannes Bok's early work, and since it is all out of copyright I've been able to include two of his covers -- he had a very distinctive and characterful style. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree they appear to be fine, but it'd be good to state your source for copyright non-renewal explicitly. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I checked via [4], so it would be easy to add that, but I'm not sure where the standard place to add it would be -- the license template doesn't have parameters. Where does this information usually go for out of copyright images? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I usually link right above the license tag. File:Alex_Schomburg_-_Harl_Vincent_-_Marvel_Science_Stories_for_April-May_1939_-_Illustration_for_Newscast.jpg might be a good template. By the way, Abebooks has a couple copies of these magazines available, so the images might be improveable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Done; I didn't include the license in that parameter because it appears lower down; not sure if that's the standard way to do it or not, but it's what happens when you use the wizard to do uploads. I have copies of all these magazines, and can scan the covers if you're interested, but unfortunately they're in boxes at the moment (along with about 5,000 other old sf magazines). If you really want to restore these old magazines I could keep you busy for a very long time once I get the boxes unpacked! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be a major boon. We could start with trying to get major artists and authors, and go from there. Have to be vigorous about copyright checking, but we always need to be vigorous about that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll scan some; I'll check with you before doing it, and it'll be a while, because they're in boxes, but I think this will be great. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JM[edit]

Generally very strong.

  • Perhaps you could more clearly clarify the relationship between the two publications in the lead? Also, perhaps the alternative name should be mentioned and bolded?
    Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The last paragraph in the publication history section could probably do with some attention
    I tweaked the tense in one place, but I may not be seeing what you're seeing -- can you be specific? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    The "had he been able to achieve it" thing is throwing me- are you suggesting that he was lying in the advert? I'm also unclear what "In the event" adds. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    The sources don't say he was lying, but personally I think it was likely to be a bait and switch. That issue of Writers' Digest appeared before any issues of either Cosmic or Stirring had appeared, and there's no question Wollheim knew he couldn't pay that rate initially. At best he was hoping that by the time he received manuscripts he might be able to start paying something, if the magazines were successful, but most likely if he liked a story he planned to offer little or nothing for it. The payments Kornbluth received were well below half a cent a word, and I'm not aware that any other writers were paid at all, though they may well have been. It's possible that he believed the Albings would pay that rate after two or three issues, but there's no way to tell.
    What I meant to convey in that paragraph was (a) the fact that he did offer a payment rate, before the magazine launched, and (b) to position that rate against the rates other magazines were paying, so that a reader understands what that rate indicates, and (c) to make it clear that he did not in fact manage to pay the rate. "In the event" is meant to be a transition: I meant no more than "As it turned out". What do you think could be done to improve the paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fascinated by this printer error- perhaps it could be expanded upon in a footnote if the information is too trivial for the main body?
    It's an interesting story but I don't think I have the sources to be explicit. Knight's story is about little alien invaders whose bodies were incredibly resilient, so that bullets would cause their bodies to distort but would not harm them. They call humans "the Brittle People". The story is only a page or two long, and the point, if I recall correctly, is the realization at the end that the little aliens are invincible. This depends on the reader understanding who the Little People are (the aliens) and who the Brittle People are (the humans). In the opening sentence, the printer changed "Brittle People" to "Little People", presumably because he assumed it was a mistake on the writer's part. I met Damon Knight years ago and asked him to sign my copy of that issue, and he did, and also corrected the misprint, writing "Brittle People, dammit!" above the first sentence, and signing it. If I can find that issue in my basement I could take a picture of that correction with his signature and include that in the article I suppose, but I'm not sure that's sufficient evidence for a discussion in the text. As it happens, Damon told me he didn't own a copy of that issue any more, so I later found one and sent it to him, which was a nice thing to be able to do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    What a fantastic story- both about the misprint and your interactions with Knight. A Google Book search suggests that sources may exist. Any details you can include would be very interesting. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    I had no idea the details were out there; thanks for finding that! I've added a footnote; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In his autobiographical anthology" I note that our article on the book suggests that it is a story anthology rather than autobiographical?
    It's both -- it's a collection of all the stories which to that point had not been collected in his short story collections, interspersed with autobiographical reminiscences. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wollheim later commented to Damon Knight that because of the payment he could sue Asimov for royalties whenever his name appeared in print." A nice factoid, but it's not completely clear now- too many pronouns for clarity.
    Fixed, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In contrast to Tremaine's attitude, John W. Campbell, who in 1938 had taken over from Tremaine as editor of the leading science fiction magazine, Astounding Science Fiction, was not concerned by Albing's policy." Again, a little convoluted
    I cut the clause about Campbell taking over from Tremaine; it's true but not strictly necessary to the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although Campbell was proved right when the magazines ceased publication" Sorry to be picky, but Campbell was certainly not proven right by the fact the magazine ceased publication. Perhaps you could say "Although the magazine did cease publication after a relatively short amount of time, ..."
    Thompson's comment in the source is that Campbell's "prognosis" was proved correct, by which he appears to mean Campbell's assertion that the magazines wouldn't be competitive. I think ceasing publication is evidence that they weren't competitive, which I think is what Thompson meant. I've changed this to "Campbell's prediction"; does that help? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    How about "although Campbell was correct that the magazine was unable to compete with paying magazines" or something like it? Technically, for Thompson's preduction to be proved correct, it would have to be unsuccessful because of the low quality of the content, which goes against the following setence. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, that's definitely better. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There seems to be some inconsistency between the use of "science fiction" and "sf"
    It's deliberate variation -- I use "sf" because "science fiction" is a long enough phrase that is repeated often enough in these articles to get tedious. "Sf" is the standard abbreviation, but I don't think it's necessary to use it all the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I made some fixes- please double-check them. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits all look good to me. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I will get back to this in the next few days- sorry for the delay! J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Some quick further comments:

  • Quotes, even in the lead, should always be cited.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Was the crucial typo in the first sentence or the last sentence of the story?
    The first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Some months later Wollheim was able to find another publisher," Perhaps mention the name of the publisher here?
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've made some more tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits look fine; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose and content. I've not looked into the sources/images in detail. Great work. J Milburn (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support -- recusing from coord duties:

  • No dab or dup links
  • Prose looks good, I just tweaked here and there
  • Structure is simple and straightforward
  • Content/detail seems sufficient, especially given the short life of these mags
  • I'll rely on the review above for image licensing
  • Sources all look reliable and happy with the formatting

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No prob -- I forgot to add, just picking up on your nom statement, that the covers you've been able to include are indeed very special! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Yes, I think Bok's work is really unusual and deserves to be more widely known. The May 1941 Cosmic cover, in particular, is terrific. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Gary Cooper[edit]

Nominator(s): Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the American film actor Gary Cooper, noted for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances. His career spanned thirty-six years, from 1925 to 1961, and included leading roles in eighty-four feature films. He was a major movie star from the end of the silent film era through the end of the golden age of Classical Hollywood. His screen persona appealed powerfully to both men and women, and his range of performances included roles in most major movie genres. Cooper's ability to project his own personality onto the characters he played contributed to his appearing natural and authentic on screen. The screen persona he sustained throughout his career represented the ideal American hero. Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – As one of the peer reviewers. At an earlier stage in its history the article was long and, in parts, discursive. The nominator has since tightened it up admirably, and it is now comprehensive without being overlong. The prose is a pleasure to read, the sourcing and referencing are wide and thorough, the proportions and balance impeccable. I leave it to the experts to comment on the images, but as regards the text I am happy to support for FA. – Tim riley talk 18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Undue coverage of Patricia Neal and abortion makes me quite concerned. The affair is of minor biographical value, and a couple of sentences would suffice. I say this as a person whose GA Joseph Widney was achieved by massive removal of "stuff". Collect (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I responded to your discussion on the Gary Cooper talk page, but I'll copy that response here for the reviewers. Cooper's love affair with Neal was well-publicized and documented in Neal's autobiography, as well as all of the Cooper biographies. By all accounts this was not a casual fling, but a serious relationship, which led to Cooper's three-year separation from his wife (which you also deleted)—a major event in his personal life. After his death, Cooper's daughter Maria reached out to Neal and helped her through a difficult time. A few sentences about their affair and the direct impact on his marriage is appropriate for this article. If the focus of your objection is the sentence on abortion, delete that one sentence. A fair argument can be made for its removal. Keep in mind that a number of editors have recently reviewed this article—GA and Peer Review—and it was not brought up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this here and the article talk page. Bede735 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Made edit on that basis - also removed an "also" etc. OK? Collect (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with your changes. Bede735 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Another happy PR participant. This article is very well written, nicely balanced, covers all the aspects of Cooper's life I would expect it to, and is an enjoyable read throughout. Excellent work! - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I conducted the GA review for this and was happy with many of the improvements during and since with the peer review. There may still be too much personal life info for some people, but it is clearly very well researched and written and some readers will like the length.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support I have been making visits to this article since it's GA review and the article has improved to a great extent. My only comment is that it would be better to archvie all newspaper and magazines article references to prevent dead links. Otherwise, great job! — Ssven2 speak 2 me 10:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Gary_Cooper_Signature.png: what is the original source for this?
I created the signature image from an autograph I found here: PSA (fourth image in the scroll). I added a link to the original source to the image page. Bede735 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:For_Whom_The_Bell_Tolls_trailer.jpg: IMDb is not a good source for copyright status - check for renewals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I replaced the link on the image page with one from TCM, also with no copyright notice. Bede735 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Having spend a lot of time on this article myself, I believe it's worth FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Any more concerns from me? Nope; Do I support this article? YUP! Jimknut (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- I can see this article has generated healthy interest (as one would hope). We still need a source review for formatting/reliability, as well as a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing given this is the nominator's first time at FAC. I'll post a request at WT:FAC for the former, perhaps Tim could look after the latter? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Love It to Death[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Alice Cooper band's breakthrough album, which took them from mere chicken-slaughtering infamy to pop superstardom—within two years they'd be rivaling Led Zeppelin in ticket sales, and would leave a lasting influence on punk, hard rock, and metal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Media review

  • "I'm Eighteen" snippet caption needs editing for grammar
  • File:Dwight_Frye.png needs author's date of death and a US PD tag
  • File:Alice_Cooper_I'm_Eighteen.ogg: what is the length of the original recording?
  • File:Alice_Cooper_-_Ballad_of_Dwight_Frye_snippet.ogg also needs length of original recording as well as a more extensive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I didn't notice this source review on my watchlist. Sorry to have left it so long! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments -- as a minor Alice fan (if that's possible!) I might recuse coord duties to review, hopefully over the coming week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Looking forward to that! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here we go...

  • Copyedited a bit so I don't have any special issue with the prose as it now stands -- tks Curly for responding to and actioning a couple of queries I raised in my edit summaries.
    • The only thing I've gone and undone is the past tense in the album cover bit—we're supposed to describe these things in the present tense, as these details remain true today. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Didn't really notice the lack of anything much in terms of comprehensiveness -- background, recording, style, reception and legacy all seemed to be treated in reasonable depth without going into the trivial.
  • Media-wise I'll happily go with Nikki's review above.
  • Source-wise I'd welcome a review for formatting/reliability from Nikki but I'll probably spotcheck some sources myself, particularly in the Content section, for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. This isn't because I think Curly's a risky proposition but I find it's a bit of a challenge to paraphrase discussions of popular music while remaining close to the meaning intended, so worth a look in any such article.
  • That brings me to a couple of structural suggestions: I wonder if Content might not be better as Style or simply Music and lyrics, unless those are frowned upon by WP:Albums these days. I also feel the present Content style should be sandwiched between Recording and production and Release and reception, since going from the latter to Content seemed to be rewinding things.
    • You're right—I think I may have had the bit on the cover artwork in there at some time, but now there's only the music and lyrics, so I've retitled the section "Music and lyrics". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

That's about it for now, I enjoyed the read and am leaning to support but will await your responses re. structure and also look at a few sources before committing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Polytope24 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

M-theory is the remarkable physical theory in eleven dimensions whose existence was conjectured by Edward Witten in 1995. Witten's discovery ignited the second superstring revolution and led to a number of important developments in theoretical physics and pure mathematics. This year is the 20th anniversary of Witten's announcement, so I thought it would be cool to bring this article to featured status. Polytope24 (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


  • Roughly speaking, bosons are the constituents of radiation, while fermions are the constituents of matter.

I associate bosons more with mediating forces than radiation.

  • Such objects had been considered as early as 1962 by Paul Dirac, and they were reconsidered by a small but enthusiastic group of physicists in the 1980s.

A reference to a Dirac publication would be nice.

  • Branes are dynamical objects which can propagate through spacetime according to the rules of quantum mechanics. They have mass and can have other attributes such as charge.

Do all branes have mass?

  • There is a small amount of inline LaTeX. As always, it looks awful AWFUL when using PNG rendering on a large screen.

Suggestion: Use the math templates like in xyyx and 1/g or 1g.

YohanN7 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, YohanN7. I just finished making changes to the article. Please let me know if I have adequately addressed your concerns. Polytope24 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, every single one. I'll actually read that Dirac paper. His papers are usually very clearly presented. YohanN7 (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support All my issues have been dealt with, I hope my comments are ultimately useful to the audience. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your help! Polytope24 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: To start with, I'm actually surprised how well this article is put together. I especially like the lede's summation of the theory's (theories) applicability to math vs. physics, which is often overlooked in more glowing articles (well, in the past at least, perhaps the bloom is off the rose). Most of the wiki's math articles are absolutely atrocious collections of jargon, but this one is presented in easily readable prose with actual explanations. Most of what follows is minor, but there is one big issue I'd like to see addressed, lacking which I think the article is incomplete and inherently misleading. So, onward...


This section mixes notes and citations. I'd strongly recommend removing the notes, like item 1, should be in their own section. If you're OK with that, I can quickly implement that with efn if you'd like.

*"In everyday life, there are three familiar dimensions of space (up/down, left/right, and forward/backward), and there is one dimension of time (later/earlier). Thus, in the language of modern physics, one says that spacetime is four-dimensional."

I don't think it's reasonable to state that 4d spacetime is a part of "everyday life". More broadly, I think it's worth another couple of sentences in this para to explain where 4d "is". Conceptually, GR is quite simple (IMHO) and I think we should make an attempt to explain that here, otherwise what follows is sort of floating about on it's own. Perhaps something along the lines of...
In everyday life we are familiar with the three dimensions of space, up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. In physics, however, general relativity introduces the concept that time itself is a similar dimension, giving rise to the modern concept of spacetime, a four-dimensional universe. We do not directly observe the 4th dimension in the same way we do the other three, we do not see it as a physical construct. Many everyday effects, like gravity, are a side-effect of this unseen "direction"; under general relativity, you are held to the surface of the Earth not because something is pulling you down, but because that is the shortest distance between today and tomorrow in a direction you cannot see.
I apologize for the prose of that last sentence, but you get where I'm going here. Some explanation of the geometric basis for gravity seems appropriate at this spot.
I have slightly expanded the edit you made here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

*"Despite the obvious relevance of four-dimensional spacetime for describing the physical world"

Again, I don't consider this "obvious". Perhaps something discussing the success of these theories, as opposed to their obviousness, would be more appropriate here.

*"History and development"

Here's where I see an actual problem. Higher-dimensional solutions to physics have been around since GR. It was not long after that we had Kaluza–Klein theory and Einstein's own efforts. I consider these to be the forerunners of M-theory in every fashion. That they failed in their quest is not surprising given the difficulty of applying GR generally, and it is equally unsurprising that supergravity became "a thing" shortly after the golden age of GR began. I really think that this article should mention the development of the precursors, and the "battle" between these and QM's development through the same era. In that historical context, attempts to "dimensionize" physics were failures, QM was offering more progress and those other efforts dropped by the wayside. They briefly re-emerged in the 70s, and I think the article does a fine job from that point on.
I think this is a serious problem. In this historiography, M theory is the latest salvo in a 100-year battle between the two great physics. It's the way it potentially sits above either that makes it such a hot topic. Currently the article doesn't talk this at all, and I think that is a serious oversight.

That's all I have for now, I'm about 2/3rds through it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maury, thanks for these comments. I actually think all of these points are fairly easy to address, including the issue with the history section. I'll start working on it as soon as possible. In the mean time, if you want to make changes to the notes/citations, you're certainly welcome to do that. Polytope24 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Polytope24, check out my User:Maury Markowitz/sandbox and see if you think that would be a useful first section in the history area. I wrote it to lead directly into the existing section. If you like it, I can ref it up. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for these suggestions. I just added a short subsection explaining the prehistory of higher dimensional models of spacetime and Kaluza-Klein theory. This is all based on the material you posted in your sandbox, but I changed a bunch of things in order to ensure that writing was accurately reflected in the citations.
I also decided to leave out the parts explaining Newton's laws and the history of general relativity. The purpose of of this section is to give a concise history of M-theory, not to explain the whole history of physics starting with the work of Newton. On the other hand, I am sympathetic to your concern that the article did not sufficiently emphasize the prehistory of the subject and the role of Kaluza-Klein theory. Hopefully the changes I've made will address your concerns. If not, please let me know, and we can talk about it.
You'll also notice that I added a few sentences elaborating on the notion of four-dimensional spacetime. This should help emphasize the point you've been making, namely that the idea of extra dimensions was implicit in a lot of the thinking leading up to the discovery of M-theory.
Please let me know if there's anything else I need to change. Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Excellent work! My only remaining suggestion in the history section is to mention the 1960s rebirth of GR as a leadup to supergravity. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I added a sentence on this. Please let me know if that's what you wanted. Polytope24 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I have moved the sentence into the appropriate section, expanded it slightly and cited it. I extracted notes into a separate section, and re-sectionized the references. See what you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. I made a few changes to maintain a consistent citation style. Polytope24 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the issues above have been dealt with. I just finished the section on AdS/CFT correspondence and think I actually understand it now. This is precisely the sort of clear explanation that many of the math and science articles lack, and I'm calling it out for attention on how to do this right. Ok, just a few more...

*"One property of this boundary is that, locally around any point,"

So does this mean "at any arbitrary point on the boundary"? I'm a bit confused about this passage. Do we live in the middle of the disk, or on it's edge?


I can't find an explanation of what "(2,0)" means, either here or the linked article. The 6D is explained, as is AsD7, but not this term. Maybe a return directly after this to separate the para and then a single sentence on this?

*A couple of cites need buffing, Randall, Wald and Zee have harv tags with nothing pointing to them. Would you like me to fix these? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I made some very subtle changes in the section on AdS/CFT to emphasize that "locally around a point" refers to a region restricted to the boundary surface, and not intersecting the interior at all. The point of the AdS/CFT correspondence is that you have two separate theories. For one of them, "spacetime" is the bulk anti-de Sitter space, and for the other, it's the two-dimensional surface at the boundary. Please let me know if the revised version is more understandable.
I also added a sentence explaining the meaning of (2,0). This is a pretty technical bit of jargon that's not really relevant for understanding what this theory is all about, so I mentioned only very briefly.
Finally, I went ahead and removed those harv tags. They were originally being used to create citations within the explanatory footnotes. However, I was bothered by the fact that these citations showed up as hyperlinks and none of the others did. I also didn't like the idea of having footnotes within footnotes. Feel free to make further changes to the references if you like. Polytope24 (talk) 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm coming in late to this, but I would like to remind editors that WikiProject Mathematics strongly discourages use of {{frac}} in mathematical formulas. I see that hasn't been done. I would not be at all surprised if {{math|{{frac|1|''g''}}}} would fail at some point. I did make one change, which I hope meets with approval. I changed {{math}}10<sup>-30</sup>}} to {{nowrap|10<sup>−30</sup>}}, changing "math" no "nowrap" and changing the hyphen to a mathematical minus. I don't think wrapping numbers, by themselves, in {{math}}, serves any purpose. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Arthur Rubin. I don't know much about typesetting math on Wikipedia, so I appreciate your help with this. Do you have any recommendations for typesetting fractions? Polytope24 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{{math|{{sfrac|1|''g''}}}} 1/g is considered acceptable, but formulas involving complex fractions have many of the same problems using <math>...</math> and {{math}}. {{frac|1|2|3}} (1 23) uses superscript and subscript and thinspaces to simulate pre-computer typesetter's fraction notation; there is a version of that in LaTeX, but it's (wisely) not available within our math tags. I used to have a template {{tfrac}} which used the same parameters as {{frac}} and {{sfrac}}, but just used the inline version (with, I think, some thin spaces). It was deleted as unnecessary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I just learned about {{frac}} and have been going through my articles looking for places to use it. {{frac}} is my new god. And they don't like it? <moviesound>Noooooooo!</moviesound> Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

My knowledge of the topic is that of an interested layman with a maths background, so some of these questions may reveal my ignorance more than they point up issues in the article.

  • "One of the vibrational states of a string gives rise to the graviton": I don't think you say clearly that there is only one type of string, which may have different vibrational states, and that these states correspond to the various fundamental particles -- that is, that there are no particles left over by this approach. For a reader unfamiliar with the topic I think this would be worth stating directly. Perhaps even enumerate a couple more well-known particles beyond the graviton to make it clearer this approach models all particles.
  • "the type I theory includes ..., while the type II theories include ...": why singular "theory" for "type I" but plural for type II?
    D'oh. I see you fixed this, but I just realized the answer, and it really didn't need to be changed. Oh, well, it works the way you have it now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that this needs to be in the article, but I found myself wondering to what extent the dualities are transitive. The description you give: "If two theories are related by a duality, it means that one theory can be transformed in some way so that it ends up looking just like the other theory" is pretty strong; wouldn't that imply that all five of these theories can be transformed into any of the others?
    I'll reply to this below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused by the appearance of M-theory in the duality diagram. It's been described up to this point as a superset of all the string theories; the five named theories are limit points of it. So in what sense can it be specified to the point where it is dual to some of the five theories but not others?
    I'll reply to this below too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You give two (apparently) different informal characterizations of "supergravity theory". In the supersymmetry section you say a theory in which supersymmetry is imposed as a local symmetry is a supergravity theory; later you say "fresh work on higher-dimensional concepts combining general relativity with recent developments in particle physics, under the general name supergravity". Are these slightly different informal terms for the same underlying theories, or was the term used slightly differently in the 1960s?
  • In a couple of places you have "work of" rather than "the work of"; if you don't want to use "the" I think "work by" would read more naturally.
  • "One of the problems was that the laws of physics appear to distinguish between clockwise and counterclockwise, a phenomenon known as chirality. As emphasized by Edward Witten and others, this chirality property cannot be readily derived by compactifying from eleven dimensions." The start of the second sentence seems a bit clumsy to me. How about "...a phenomenon known as chirality: Edward Witten and others have emphasized that this chirality property cannot be readily derived by compactifying from eleven dimensions"?
  • "Indeed, by the 1990s, physicists had identified five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory": does this mean they'd identified five, and there are possibly more still to be identified? I'm not clear what "indeed" is adding here.
    The change you made is an improvement, but I'm still not quite clear if the implication is that there were exactly five to be found, and they were found; or if five had been found by the 1990s, with possibly more remaining to be discovered. The use of "determined" makes the former seem likely but I wanted to check. In the context of the rest of the article it seems as though there should in fact be many more theories, inside the grey "M-theory" shape in the schematic diagram, but perhaps only five of them qualify as purely supersymmetric theories, with only ten dimensions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The general belief is that there are exactly five supersymmetric string theories in ten dimensions, but I'm not comfortable writing this in the article. An expert on perturbative string theory could probably give you arguments why this is the case, but the statement that there are only five string theories is not a theorem. It's certainly possible that theorists will eventually discover a new string theory; see here, for example. Let me know if you think there's a better way to express this state of affairs in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think if we just weaken "determined" to something like "identified" it will fix the issue -- "identified" would be neutral about whether there are five or more than five theories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Damn. I just noticed that that's the exact word you originally had, and when I first read it I took it as not neutral. Sorry for being so unhelpful on this one; let me think about it and see if I can come up with a phrase that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Currently the article has "In string theory, the possibilities are much more constrained, and there are only a few consistent formulations of the theory. By the 1990s, physicists had determined that there were five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory." Could we say something like "In string theory, the possibilities are much more constrained: by the 1990s, physicists had identified five consistent supersymmetric versions of the theory, and it is possible that there are no more to be found"? That would let the reader know that it isn't definitely the case that there are only five. The phrase I cut seems redundant with the second half of the sentence, which makes it clear by example that there are only a few consistent formulations. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ashoke Sen studied the heterotic theory compactified down to four dimensions": should this be "theories" rather than "theory", since there are two heterotic theories?
    Your change addresses my concern, but now I wonder why this is here. Presumably his work was significant, but you don't actually say so -- I imagine he's not the only theorist who has studied heterotic strings in four dimensions. Can we say why his work is worth mentioning? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This should be fixed now. Polytope24 (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The section "Relationships between string theories" is written as if no mention of the two dualities had been made earlier in the article. I think the level of detail is about right, but I think it would read more naturally to acknowledge the fact that these have already been mentioned and diagrammed and the reader can be presumed to recall some of that information. Alternatively, you might be able to move the information on dualities (and probably also on branes) down to the subsection of the history and development section where those concepts come up. I think either approach can work.
  • "These calculations led them to conjecture that the BFSS matrix model is exactly equivalent to M-theory. It can therefore be used to describe M-theory and investigate its properties in a relatively simple setting": assuming that their conjecture is not yet proven, would it be more accurate to say "It might therefore be used"? As it stands the sentence makes it seem that the usefulness is not contingent on the truth of the conjecture.
    Sorry, the change you made doesn't really address what I was trying to say. The last sentence starts "It can therefore be used", which is unconditional. Is the BFSS matrix model now known to be exactly equivalent to M-theory, as proposed? Or is the equivalence still conjectural? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with saying that matrix theory is equivalent to M-theory is that the latter isn't really well defined. The very existence of M-theory is a conjecture, whereas matrix theory is a well defined construction that theorists can study mathematically. Therefore it doesn't really make precise sense to "conjecture" an equivalence.
Instead, what's going on here is the following. The BFSS paper showed that matrix theory has certain properties that are expected to hold in any correct formulation of M-theory. It therefore proposed matrix theory as a possible definition of M-theory, and this proposal now has wide support. It is in this sense that matrix theory may be used to investigate the properties of M-theory.
I realize that this is potentially a very confusing issue, so I went ahead and changed the language in the article. Polytope24 (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Struck; that's much clearer and answers the question I had. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1999, Nathan Seiberg and Edward Witten described further relations between string theory and noncommutative geometry": this is quite a bland statement. No doubt the technical details wouldn't be helpful but is the point here that their work tightened or strengthened the links mentioned in the previous sentence? If so, perhaps we could say that.
  • Is there a possible link target for AdS7×S4?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Mike Christie. You've asked a couple of really excellent questions that I'm not sure how to address within the article. I'll try to explain the answers here, and perhaps you can recommend changes to the article that would clarify things.
I found myself wondering to what extent the dualities are transitive… wouldn't that imply that all five of these theories can be transformed into any of the others?
That is correct. A duality, by definition, is an exact (and very nontrivial) equivalence of two physical theories. The conjecture is that all of the five superstring theories are equivalent by these dualities and in addition that they are all equivalent to M-theory in eleven dimensions. In certain contexts, it may be useful to work in one theory or another, but in principle it should be possible to map any calculation in one theory to an equivalent calculation in any of the other theories.
It's been described up to this point as a superset of all the string theories; the five named theories are limit points of it. So in what sense can it be specified to the point where it is dual to some of the five theories but not others?
M-theory is meant to describe some physical phenomena in eleven dimensions. If you take one of the dimensions to be shaped like a circle, the physics is still that of M-theory: two- and five-dimensional branes. If you take the circle to be very small, then there's an alternative description of the physics in terms of type IIA strings in ten-dimensions, but fundamentally we're talking about the same physics as before, so these theories must be equivalent. Since we're talking about a very special physical regime in which spacetime has a very special geometry, we label this theory at one of the cusps in the M-theory diagram. Polytope24 (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It sounds as though the grey area in the M-theory schematic diagram in the article could be regarded as a parameter space, and the five superstring theories represent different points in that parameter space. Is that more or less right? Then the dualities are equivalence relations within the parameter space. So are there multiple equivalence classes within M-theory? Or are all possible "parameterizations" (if that's the word I'm looking for) of M-theory essentially equivalent? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The gray region in the diagram is similar to a parameter space. The different points represent different physical situations that are possible in M-theory. In certain parts of the diagram, it is natural to describe the physics in terms of one of the five string theories, but the relationship between M-theory and these five string theories is valid more generally. In principle, you could consider a physical scenario corresponding to any point in the diagram and describe it in any of the string theories. Polytope24 (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's helpful; thanks. I don't think that that's stated as clearly in the article as you just put it; perhaps something to that effect could be added? I think that might be enough to resolve my concern, but I'm finding it difficult to articulate exactly what my concern is. I'd like to sleep on it and take another look at the article tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm still not clear how the dualities diagram can work with the description of M-theory you give. Perhaps the right question is: if any point in the diagram can be described, in principle, in any of the five theories, why does the diagram show only two of the five with a duality connecting them to M-theory? To put it another way: the duality between Type I and SO (32) heterotic connects two different points on the gray shape; the duality "converts" one point into the other. For the duality between Type IIA and M-theory, what is the other point -- the non-Type IIA point? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I just made a bunch of changes to the article to address your other points. Let me know what you think. Polytope24 (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've struck most and responded to a couple above; feel free to reply indented at the appropriate points in my bullet list -- sometimes that's easier to follow. I'll try to come up with sensible answers to your first two replies in a moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"When asked which state he hails from, our sole reply shall be, he hails from Appomattox and its famous apple tree." Fellow Wikipedians, I give you Ulysses S. Grant. Soldier, politician, businessman, and author, he bestrode mid-19th century America like a Colossus. Easily the most popular man of his age in the United States, he comes before you in this article which, since it last appeared on these pages, has undergone extensive copyediting and significant content changes, not to mention a thorough A-class review at WikiProject Military history. My co-editors and I think it meets the FA criteria. As the bit of doggerel that I've copied above suggests, we hope to get this on the Main Page by April 9, 2015, the 150th anniversary of Grant's victory at Appomattox Court House. Thank you for your attention. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: I am a Wikicup participant, and I believe I would be eligible for points on this, but I have to check with the coordinators -- much of the work was done last year. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt[edit]

Support I was an A-class participant. Much improved and very worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you, and thanks again for your comments at the A-class review. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "Emboldened by Lincoln's call for a general advance": This was "... a general advance of all Union forces" at the end of the A-class review, and many readers won't think these two sentences mean the same thing. There have been a lot of tweaks since A-class, and they're mostly fine from a copyeditor's point of view, but some of them change the meaning, and I have no knowledge of whether they were made by people consulting the sources who decided to change the meaning. But I trust Coemgenus's and Wehwalt's judgment on this.
  • "an immediate taking": ugh.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the support and the copyediting. I've reworded the parts you pointed out above. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton[edit]

My interest in the Gilded Age has been stimulated by some fine articles from the Wehwalt stable, and I realise that Grant is a central figure of the period. But I feel somewhat frustrated with this, an evidently well-prepared and accurate account of Grant's life, the issue that niggles being that of length. The article is over 14,300 words long, not the longest-ever potential FA, but within the top half-dozen, I suspect. However, this is the "main article" in a series covering all aspects of Grant's life; the series collectively amounts to well over 55,000 words – including a whopping 18,000+ in the article on Grant's presidency. With such an abundance of detail available in the subarticles, does this main article have to be quite so long? The art of encyclopedia writing encompasses selection, summary, and succinct expression, and it doesn't seem that these have been fully exercised here. My chief frustration is that, because of the pressures of my other WP commitments, I simply won't have time to read and properly review an article that is of great interest to me. This is no reflection on the efforts of Coemgenus and the other principal contributors, but it does raise – again – the question of what is, or should be, the accepted maximum length of a WP article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. The article is long, longer than any I've ever worked on. Since before it was made GA, Alanscottwalker and I have worked to tighten and summarise the prose, with some success. Compare, for example, this pre-GA version. I've cut things and had editors object, so we add them back in in the name of consensus. The sub-articles have helped, but have not solved the problem.
I recognise that saying "it could be worse" is not a great defense, but it is illustrative of how much information there is out there about Grant, and how much of it various editors wish to include in the article. The size of major articles have crept up over the years across the encyclopedia. I think a lot of this is because things that used to be just stated and linked are now both linked and explained briefly in the article. It makes for a more fluid read, but it does add to the length of the thing.
If you can think of some areas that could use trimming, I will gladly cut them down, but I think we're approaching the point where leaving more out means telling an incomplete story of the man. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A FA quality biography of the leading general of the US Civil War and a two-term president is inevitably going to be fairly lengthy. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
That's how I look at it. We could use better data on this on how people use our articles, as it is, we are just guessing on length.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: – for what its worth I don't think there are any particular issues with length, by my count there are more than 115 currently featured articles that are longer than this one, so no where near "within the top half-dozen". Indeed the top ten largest FAs range from 190 kb to a rather large 248 kb. At approx 138 kb this isn't even close. You can run the script here for these stats [5]. Anotherclown (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The number of kb is a useless measure of length so far as the reader – or indeed the reviewer – is concerned. It is the number of words in the text, in this case 14,300+, that creates the burden. I'm not sure how many FAs have more than 14000 words, but I suspect the answer is not too many. It is a matter of concern whether these uber-articles get the depth of review treatment that they warrant – are potential reviewers put off by the length and time required, as I was? Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Gday thanks for clarifying that. By my reading WP:SIZE seems to mainly talk in terms of kbs and I'll admit I don't have any stats readily at hand on regarding FAs and prose size, although you are probably right in saying that this would be at the higher end. I agree longish articles can struggle to attract reviewers due to the work required, although I don't see that that is a warstopper (for instance by my count this article was reviewed by no less than 7 editors during its A class review - where it is unfortunately now fairly rare to get more than the minimum three). Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I see that Coemgenus has been trimming and has the count below 14,000 now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Nick-D[edit]

I don't think that I'm qualified to comment on Grant's political career, so I'll limit my coverage to his military career.

  • "not in charge of any company" - would a brevet second lieutenant typically command a company? - the article later says that he commanded a sub-unit of this size only after he'd been promoted to be a captain.
    • You're right, and I deleted this clause.
  • "Grant participated in leading a cavalry charge " - could this be "Grant led a cavalry charge"?
    • Sure could. Fixed.
  • "Grant's mandatory service expired during the war, but he chose to remain a soldier" - do we know why he went from wanting to get out of the Army as soon as he could to deciding to stay on?
    • His memoirs don't say, and I don't recall his biographers giving a reason, either, though I'll recheck this evening.
  • "He grew unhappy separated from his family" - this wording is a bit awkward
    • Should be better now.
  • The material on 1862 doesn't really explain Grant's role and campaign strategy - he and his army simply move from battle to battle, meeting other friendly and enemy armies. It would be good to explain how Grant fitted into the Union war effort in the west at this time.
    • I'm not sure how much of Halleck's strategy we can add within the space constraints. I noted that Forts Henry and Donelson were important to control of the rubbers, so the reader should understand why the army went that way, I think.
  • "Before the attack on Fort Sumter, Grant had not reacted strongly to Southern secession.[46] The news of the attack came as a shock in Galena," - this para seems a bit out of place given that it breaks up the chronological order of the article. I'd suggest reallocating this material.
    • Yes, it should be more chronological now.
  • "the attack be conducted with oversight by navy Flag Officer Andrew H. Foote" - what's meant by 'oversight' here? Was Grant under Foote's command?
    • The chain of command isn't clear in the sources, but this, at p.97 in McFeely, explains better. Halleck didn't approve it when Grant suggested it, but relented when Grant and Foote jointly suggested it.
  • "Lincoln promoted Grant to major-general of volunteers while the Northern press treated Grant as a hero repeating his words "No terms except an unconditional and immediate surrender." - this is a bit confusing as the (fairly dramatic) circumstances in this Grant said this aren't explained
    • I reworded this to make it clearer.
  • "now numbered 48,894 troops" - this seems overly specific: I imagine that it's a point in time figure, but the strength of the army would have varied a bit.
    • You're right, it's far too specific. Changed to "nearly 50,000".
  • The start of the first para in the "Shiloh" section should explain what Grant was trying to do, and his relationship with Sherman
    • There used to be more about the Grant-Sherman relationship, but it was cut for brevity. There's still the part about Sherman convincing Grant to stay in the army. I think that's enough. Probably more could be explained in the sub-article.
  • "Grant's troops challenged the Confederate onslaught" - "challenged" is a bit vague, and misses the drama of the battle: the Union Army was largely taken by surprise, but survived as some of its units conducted a determined defensive action
    • I reworded it to better reflect that the Union troops were surprised and driven back.
  • "At dawn, Grant counterattacked, adding 20,000 fresh troops from Major General Don Carlos Buell and Lew Wallace's divisions" - "adding" isn't quite right: those units (or at least some of them) had arrived as reinforcements during the battle
    • Tweaked the language here.
  • "The battle was the costliest in American history to that point, with total casualties of 23,746, but Lincoln overruled Grant's critics, saying "I can't spare this man; he fights." - the second half of this sentence doesn't sit comfortably with the first (and it seems to relate to the sentence before it)
    • I rearranged it, but I'm still not satisfied completely with how it reads. Any suggestions are welcome.
  • "was the key to Union victory in the West" - you need to explain why (it was the final significant barrier to Union control of the Mississippi)
    • Done.
  • "Grant arrived in Chattanooga by horseback, implementing plans to relieve the siege and resume the offensive" - his development of these plans should be noted (this wording suggests that he was "implementing" someone else's plans)
    • Reworded, should be better now.
  • The para on Grant's assumption of command of all Union Armies should note that he seriously considered making his headquarters in the West
    • Done.
  • "his headquarters with Meade's army" - it would be better to specify that this was the famous Army of the Potomac
    • Done.
  • "Grant and Lincoln devised a strategy of coordinated Union offensives" - did Lincoln play a significant role in developing this strategy? My understanding is that he generally let Grant lead the war effort (you could note that Grant's appointment allowed Lincoln to surrender some of the day-to-day direction of the war effort, which he'd been wanting to do for some time but had been unwilling to do as he lacked confidence in Grant's predecessors)
    • I think you're right. I deleted "and Lincoln".
  • "Depending on Lee's actions, Grant would join forces with Butler's armies and be fed supplies from the James" - the first part of this sentence implies that Grant had several options planned to take into account Lee's different potential responses, but then the second part of the sentence specifies only one option
    • True. I reworded.
  • "The costly assault at Cold Harbor was the second of two battles in the war that Grant later said he regretted" - what was the other one?
    • An assault on the Vicksburg trenches. I added a parenthetical to that effect.
  • "Unbeknownst to Lee" - this is a bit confusing. "Without being detected by Lee" perhaps?
    • Done.
  • The "Commanding general" section is probably a bit over-long: the years of political manoeuvring could be covered in less detail Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • We've trimmed some where we could over the last few days, but I'll take another look this afternoon.
      • The para starting with 'When the Senate reinstated Stanton' could be trimmed considerably given that it provides a blow by blow account of events. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I've tightened the language some, but I'm afraid that losing any more will obscure the reasons behind Johnson's impeachment and breach with Grant. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Nick-D, are these all resolved to your satisfaction? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:UlyssesSGrantSignature.svg: what's the original source for this?
    • I left a query on the original uploader's talk page. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
      • To follow up, User:Connormah replied "if I recall correctly this is a trace from a previously uploaded image here on Wikipedia from years ago." --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Well, we should include more details on the image description page, but even that is a bit...vague. Any idea what previous image was being traced? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Battle_of_Fort_Donelson.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:VicksburgBlockade.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, without which the copyright tag cannot be verified. Same problem with File:Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-Trials.jpg
  • File:Ely_S._Parker.jpg, File:Kalakaua_Grant_state_visit_1874.jpg: source link is dead
    • Fixed the first. I could find no good source info for the second, so I replaced it with File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg, which has better credentials (and is a better picture, in my opinion).
  • File:US-$50-GC-1928-Fr-2404.jpg: reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Not sure what you want here. Should I delete the CC 4.0 license? --Coemgenus (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria, these are all fixed except the last. What should I do with that one? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I think so, but there's also an OTRS tag on it - any idea what that message says? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
        • No idea. I left a note on the uploader's talk page, so hopefully he'll be able to help us sort it out. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
          • I removed the CC 4.0 tag (which may have been part of the original template I was given). Any other questions please ping me.--Godot13 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Gwillhickers[edit]

Grant's funeral train

Grant's posthumous journey on his funeral train is a landmark event in Grant's biography. It was of course received at West Point and New York by many dignitaries, military and the general public and covered by newspapers across the country. Back in 2010 when I created the Funeral section I added an engraved image of the train rolling into West Point -- a fine hi'res image -- but it was removed after being in the article for several years. If it's not going to cause problems I'd recommend restoring the image to the lower portion of the Memoirs and death section, next (on the left) to the paragraph covering the event, as there's plenty of room for it there -- or at least link to that image, rather than to the generic article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there's room for both images if I use the {{stack}} template. I added it. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! As Grant's journey on the funeral train is the final event in Grant's biography it seemed important to include this image, which, imo, speaks louder than words. I'm wondering if there are any photos in the PD taken of this funeral train. Seems such an event would have been photographed somewhere along the line. I'll poke around just for the fun of it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
See also
  • Since Grant was in numerous Civil War battles it might do well for the readers, i.e.esp students and Civil War buffs, to put List of American Civil War battles under See also. Grant is mentioned 17 times in the list.
  • Is the link to History of the United States (1865–1918) in that section perhaps too broad an article, with topics that are, at best, very tangential to Grant, while most of its topics have nothing at all to do with Grant.? e.g. It covers the Progressive Era, Women's Suffrage, the Spanish American War, World War I, etc? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd just as soon get rid of the whole section. "See also" topics, if they're relevant, tend to be linked already in the text. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Thst's generally true, but certainly not always. Numerous FAs have See also sections. The list is quite relevant, yet not linked. I'd recommend replacing the History of the United States (1865–1918) link with List of American Civil War battles. I'm sure most Civil War enthusiasts would welcome it as well as many of the general readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Conditional support

The content overall is great, very well sourced, but its placement could use a little management as sections go. Also one of the sections should be renamed. See Grant talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Support a well-compiled piece Grant himself would be quite proud of! Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

St. Elmo (1914 film)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Perhaps mention the name of the unrelated Evans novel in the lead?
  • I found a newspaper advertisement of the era crediting "Dad Leonard" rather than "Pop Leonard"; not sure if that's of interest.
  • Ah, the inconsistencies of 1910s film credits! "Pop" is far more common than "Dad", and I'm inclined to think that too much of this would be out of place in the article for this particular film (he is only the eighth-billed actor, after all). But it's something I'll keep in mind if I ever get around to improving the Gus Leonard article, for certain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, I figured it was probably too trivial for this article; just thought I'd mention it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Balboa was not a film distributor, so in May 1914 contracted with William Fox's Box Office Attractions Company": missing "they" after "1914"?
  • I'm not sure the previous construction is wrong, but done regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks -- I could be wrong but I think it will read more naturally to most people that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Fox Film Corporation, Box Office's corporate successor, continued to distribute St. Elmo": it took me a second to realize that you used "continued" because Fox continued to distribute the film after they succeeded Box Office. This might read more naturally as "The Fox Film Corporation continued to distribute St. Elmo after they took over/succeeded Box Office in 19xx".
  • Rewrote this. Thoughts on the new construction? I'm open to fiddling around with this more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's definitely an improvement. I think the half after the semicolon is fine; the first half might perhaps be improved if you have the sources to be more specific about the nature of the transition: did Fox purchase Box Office? Merge with it? Take it over after bankruptcy? But it works perfectly well as it is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an ... interesting question. Ask four sources, get five answers. Koszarski claims that William Fox "reorganized" Box Office into Fox Film. On the other hand, Langman says that Fox was incorporated separately and then "absorbed" its predecessor. Solomon discusses Fox Film's incorporation process in considerable detail, but glosses over how Box Office's fate was handled. Other others provide a variety of vague descriptions of the process, not all of which mean interchangeable things: that Box Office was "replaced" by, "renamed", or "became" Fox. In any case, both were privately held companies owned by the same guy, so the precise details were probably mostly of concern to the corporate lawyers. There certainly wasn't a bankruptcy or an explicit merger of the type that later created 20th Century Fox. I can categorically state that Fox Film was not created through the merger of Box Office and the Greater New York Film Rental Company, despite that being the explanation in many less-reliable sources; that misreading of the timeline apparently first appeared in Wikipedia all the way back in 2001 (although I've recently removed it from the relevant articles). I am ... open to suggestions about a preferred wording here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    That's quite some variation in the sources. In this article I don't think the reader needs the details if they're going to be complicated, so perhaps your current wording is fine. Alternatively, how about "Box Office Attractions ceased to exist in 1915; Fox Films, also owned by William Fox, inherited Box Office's assets, and continued to..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "was the much earlier": presumably this should be "was much the earlier".
  • The suggested change reads as unnatural to me. Perhaps this is an ENGVAR issue? Regardless, I solved the problem by excising "much" entirely; it wasn't needed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    OK -- my ENGVAR is mostly BrEng, but I've lived in the U.S. for decades, so I can't be sure which side of the Atlantic my ear for a phrase is on at any given time. But not an issue since cutting it works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You don't give the date of the original novel, which wouldn't hurt, and would actually be helpful to the reader when you say it was much later than Beulah.
  • Was given in the lead (1866) but not in the body, which was an error. Added the date of the St. Elmo novel to the discussion of the film's production. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Oops -- it was indeed in the lead; sorry. Adding it to the production section is helpful too, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Diego Costa[edit]

Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Diego Costa, a contemporary footballer for Chelsea and Spain. The article recently passed GA status. It has wide content, ranging from his childhood, to his professional career, to praise and criticism of his style of play. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cptnono

  • Consider expanding the lead just a little. It may not be 100% needed.
  • Ref #7 is used extensively in the "Early life" section. I don't see any copyright issues but consider how many times the ref needs to be linked.
  • "His first European adventure..." may not be appropriate under "Early career".
  • Wikilinking "relegation" might be useful to those unfamiliar with the sport. "Aggregate" or "tie" wcould also help since the concept is brought up a few times.
  • If possible and if you feel that it would benefit the reader, consider expanding the two single sentence paragraphs in the "Early career" section. This is also noticed later in the article.
  • Under "2013-2014", "...he celebrated this a few days later in the first match of the new season, scoring a brace in a 3–1 win at Sevilla." might benefit from a different term.
  • "...Atlético sought to cure this injury for before the upcoming..." The entire line should also be broken up since it is a little long.
  • "Costa scored 8 goals during the Champions League campaign..." I believe "8" should be eight per MoS but could be wrong in this instance.
  • "... Chelsea announced on 1 July 2014 that they 'can confirm an agreement has been reached with Atletico Madrid for the transfer of Diego Costa' after they had agreed to meet the £32 million buy-out clause in Costa's contract". Can you rewrite that without the quote. It makes the line unnecessarily clumsy.
  • In regards to the request to change national teams, can you clarify FIFA's decision? It is not entirely clear and I thought (maybe incorrectly) that something like that was usually blocked.
    • Done. There are more complex regulations than the one I've included (for example, Mikel Arteta was not allowed to play for England because he was not a British citizen when he played for Spain Under-16, while Costa never played youth international at all) '''tAD''' (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Under "Playing style", it is mentioned that he refutes allegations that he deliberately aims to injure opponents. Can you add a line about these allegations?
  • Italics for certain publishers in the references (UEFA, FIFA) are not consistent with some being italicized and others not.
    • I'll come on to this soon. I think such matters come from "edit creep", different editors' modus operandi over the years '''tAD''' (talk)
  • I made a couple minor edits related to voice and dashes. Feel free to change the first if you deem it necessary.
  • Are "BDFutbol profile" and "Diego Costa at" common external links in the topic area? No worries if they are.
  • Images:
    • Can we use "Costa on loan at Rayo Vallecano..." with CarlosRM marked at the bottom? I could have sworn there was a line about this in the MoS or tutorial. Can't find it, though. If you want to go above and beyond, add some alttext (no longer appears to be a requirment for FAC but help people out)
    • "Costa executing an overhead kick..." and "Costa in action with Atletico..." pinch the text. One of the needs to be moved.
    • "Costa in action with Atletico..." should use the "upright" parameter.
  • Multiple deadlinks:

Most of the above are minor or meant as suggestions. The image and ref formatting and dead links are my primary concerns. Overall, I expect to support this after you address my comments and with a little cleanup since it jumps out as a fantastic article. I had no idea that the guy was scoring so often.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I will make edits soon. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Just a note: you seem to have forgotten to list this at WP:FAC! Maralia (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I kind of think it was funny that it was listed at FOOTY and not FAC :P I inserted the template at FAC in the correct place chronologically.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sardines (Inside No. 9)[edit]

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

"Sardines" is a free-standing, half-hour story which introduces 12 characters (played by 12 actors familiar to British viewers) and manages to cover the themes of murder, incest, sexual abuse, vengeance and adultery. Most of the episode takes place inside a wardrobe. It's a comedy, but I'm not sure the humour would be everyone's cup of tea- you can see clips here and here. The article was promoted to GA last year, and more recently formed part of a good topic. The second series of Inside No. 9 will be broadcast this year, and, while I'm working on articles for the second series, I'd like to see if I can push some of the articles about the first series to FA level. I look forward to your comments! This will probably be a WikiCup nomination. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Inside_No_9,_Sardines_poster.jpg: could we fill in the "n.a." parameters, please? They are applicable. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Quite right- I've expanded the rationale considerably. Thanks for your comment. J Milburn (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support from Jim[edit]

I wish I'd seen this, real League of Gentlemen stuff. Near the end, I wondered if "watched my more people" might be better than "more highly viewed", but I have no real quibbles, so I'm happy to support as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jim- I personally really enjoyed the series. Keep your eyes open for the second series coming at some point in the next couple of months! J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


  • External links are good and no DABs.
  • Article and book titles need to be in title case as per MoS.
    • I prefer to use title case for book titles but not article titles. Could you point to the piece of the MOS you're referring to specifically, please? J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Sure, it's MOS:CT. The only difference between book and article titles is italicization, not capitalization.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Hmm. It's certainly not explicit, and a recent discussion reached no real conclusion. (I also note that many other FAs do not follow this rule- Rodrigues starling and Money in the Bank (2011) were both promoted this month, and prefer sentence case for article titles.) I accept that (say) journal and newspaper titles should be capitalised, but I am not convinced that article titles should be- article titles are sometimes extremely long. My understanding is that professional style guides disagree on this, and as our MOS isn't explicit (individual articles are not listed anywhere, as far as I can see, as "works of art or artifice") I would have thought we can choose either way, as long as we're consistent. If there's a consensus to change this, I will, but I really do think it's ugly. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In several places your cites are out of numerical sequence.
    • Fixed the one I could see. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • One duplicate link for The Observer in the main body.
  • The prose is pretty smooth; nothing jumped out at me on first read. I'll give it another go through once these comments have been dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments! J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I've made a couple of minor copyedits; please revert at will.

  • "As such, the story was not initially about the game of sardines": what does "as such" mean here?
  • You don't need "[o]ur" when you uncap an initial uppercase letter; you can silently make it "our". Similarly with "[w]ickedly" and "[b]eing".
  • There's a lot of repetition of "writing for" at the start of the reception section. It's not easy to come up with smoother ways to say this but I think something should be done. Perhaps "Kendall, writing for the Daily Telegraph, gave the episode four out of five stars, as did A, B and C, writing for X, Y and Z (respectively); Veronica Lee, writing for The Arts Desk, gave it five out of five."?
  • "Allusions to past unhappiness is a typical trope": "allusions" is plural, so I think this has to be restructured.

Overall a very clean article; I expect to support once these minor issues are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

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

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

Brianboulton comments[edit]

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

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

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

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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brianboulton returns:

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

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

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

The rest of my review follows
Active foreign policy (c. 1009–1031)
  • I had forgotten that Boleslav was king of Poland. A reminder in the text would be useful. And, unless there are other Boleslavs in the story, I don't think you have to add "the Brave" each time he is mentioned.
  • "a town identified with Ohrid by Györffy" only makes sense after several readings and use of the link. Better phrasing might be: "...Cesaries", which Györffy identifies as the present-day town of Ohrid".
  • "Stephen's legends also wrote of 60 wealthy Pechenegs..." Legends don't write. They may be written. Perhaps "refer to " or "include stories of", or similar.
  • This section is headed "Active foreign policy", but includes topics unrelated to foreign policy, e.g. minting of coins, settling of pilgrims etc. You should either relocate these bits, or find a more inclusive section title.
  • " also dated by many historians to the very end of the 1020s..." I'd say the words "also" and "very" are reundant here.
  • "had taken his power from the Greeks" – attribute.
  • " who adopted an active foreign policy". This doesn't convey much. Do you mean an "aggressive" foreign policy?
  • "informed on" → "informed of"
  • The phrase "in the autumn of 1027" would fit better at theb start of the sentence.
Last years (1031–1038)
  • "Stephen's legends writes..." Mangled prose, and as I said earlier, legends do not "write"
  • The statement introducing the chart reads: "The following family tree presents Stephen's ancestors and his relatives who are mentioned in the article". This is not quite the case. For example, Vazul, described as Stephen's cousin, is nowhere to be seen in the tree.
  • Andrew I, who died before December 1060 according to the link, refers to "King St. Stephen", yet Stephen was not canonized until 1083 – which is a little odd.
  • "Legend tells that Stephen's coffin could not be opened until King Ladislaus held his dethroned cousin Solomon in captivity at Visegrád." This introduces new material which will baffle readers unless you add a word or two of explanation.
  • "confessor king": would a pipe-link to, say, Confessor of the Faith help readers to understand what you mean by "confessor king"?
  • "An annual procession has celebrated the relic since 1938, except between 1950 and 1987, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government". This doesn't quite read right, since the excluded years represent half of the total period. Suggest rewrite: "An annual procession celebrating the relic was instituted in 1938, and continued until 1950, when its celebration was forbidden by the communist government. It was resumed in 1988".
  • I am distressed to see Zoltán Kodály curtly introduced as "another Hungarian composer". Surely he is a little more distinguished than that?

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

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

Bramshill House[edit]

Nominator(s): ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most important Jacobean country houses in England. The current house was built in the early 17th century by Baron Edward la Zouche of Harringworth, but was partly destroyed by fire a few years later and subsequently redeveloped. The Italian Renaissance, which became popular in England during the late 16th century, is evident in its design. Some of the interior tapestries are quite remarkable pieces. It became a Grade I listed building in 1952, after which it became a police college.

This underwent vigorous research a while back, involving myself, Yngvadottir and Drmies, and Eric Corbett helped copyedit it up to beyond GA standard. It's been sitting for a while but I've recently checked to see if it is all there and it really appears to be very comprehensive. Thanks to a pretty decent peer review it has been further improved to the point I believe it is now ready to be nominated. Cheers.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – as one of the pretty decent peer reviewers I thought this article of FA standard then, and think so now. Meets all prose criteria, in my my view, and though I don't generally comment on images, being daunted by WP's arcane rules, the article is most pleasing to the eye. Seems to me to tick every box for FA. Tim riley talk 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim for some excellent comments during the review and your support! Yes some of the external images are very good but unfortunately I couldn't get hold of free interior images to show off the wonderful tapestries. I did contact the college. The black and white ones in the commons I checked and aren't free.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, without any reservations. Eric Corbett 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks Eric for your support and the copyediting work you did at an earlier stage which has really paid off in getting to FAC!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Well researched article about an important building.--Ipigott (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Ipigott for your support and recent copyedits!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Aa77zz[edit]

Ref 77 "Borrell & Cashinella 1975" is not in the Bibliography. A google search finds Crime in Britain Today which seems a strange source for the area of the lake. Aa77zz (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I accidentally removed it during the peer review earlier today. I've restored it, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Support per my peer review of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Wehwalt!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, as per my peer review. Excellent article; well done to all concerned - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated Schro, thanks!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Floor plans could be slightly larger
  • File:11thLordZouche.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Ground_floor_Bramshill_House.jpg needs US PD tag, as does File:First_Floor_Bramshill_House.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

All done, cheers Nikkimaria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: I gave this article a long peer review, during which numerous issues were raised and resolved. I have only a handful of further points:
  • The peer review needs to be properly closed – this has only been half done so far.
  • The captions for the two floor plans should be dated (to the 1880s I think). I imagine that the current floor layouts have been updated somewhat.
  • I am slightly disappointed that you haven't taken up my suggestion that Shaw's error in describing the house as Elizabethan rather than Jacobean be rewarded wih a well-deserved ((sic}}, but I won't press the matter.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Brianboulton:, many thanks for your support and excellent comments during the peer review which much improved this article. Admittedly I spent quite some time trying to find the Elizabethan remark to address what you said and for some reason couldn't find it, I was going to ask you to add it yourself, can you please do so? Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from EddieHugh[edit]

A media check has been done by someone else; I've checked online sources 22, 23, 27, 37 and 67 for fidelity to source and plagiarism. All of my points below have been dealt with. So, I'm happy to support based on the FA criteria. EddieHugh (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

All of my comments have now been dealt with. EddieHugh (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings and prints depict games taking place on the lawn." Needs a source.
  • "with a number of upper-class men, women and children as spectators". A source stating that would be preferable.
  • "Right: A fencing bout." Main text states "practice".
Some good points on the sporting events. A lot of what is known is based on paintings and prints of the house. There's quite a few depicting sports and events at the house in a history that is rather sparse in sources. To adequately support my statement I'd need to cite many of the pictures as I can't see a source which discusses them. Does it seem like OR here? I've merged mention of the painting into the sentence and removed "important" anyway♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue" is OR if it's based only on the existence of paintings. No doubt such images were typically depictions of real scenes, but they could be imagined scenes. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Well the cricket info supports the statement and I think there's enough coverage in depictions to make it stick.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe changing from "as" in "a local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings" to something not implying (otherwise unsubstantiated) evidence would do the job. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bramshill House was "in a poor state of repair" but that it was inconceivable that the police college should move given the investment already made in the site.[37]" This wording is too close to the original ("Bramshill house is in a poor state of repair [...] the investment that has already been made in the current site makes it inconceivable that the college should move"). Rephrase or use more quotation marks to avoid plagiarism.
Yes, the "inconceivable" word might make it seem like that as the other is a quote, I've reworded.
  • "fourteen different ghosts". "different" is redundant.
Not sure I agree as the same ghosts can apparently manifest themselves in different ways but I've removed.
  • "a 18-acre". Should be "an".
  • "the wider 490 acres (200 ha) medieval park". Change: "490-acre".
I'm using the conversion template, can you find a way to avoid "acres"?
Convert the other way and use "acre" (copy the 18-acre style immediately above it), if you're content to do the conversion that way. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "This includes the 25 acres (10 ha) of early 17th-century formal gardens near the house, the wider 490 acres (200 ha) medieval park, landscaped from the 17th to the 20th century, which includes 250 acres (100 ha) of woodland[78] and buildings including an icehouse and a folly known as Conduit House". Which features are parts of larger units would be clearer if semi-colons were used (e.g., "This includes: w; x, which y; z"). This would make it easier to read, as would avoiding repetition of 'include'.
Reworded, I'd prefer not to use semicolons.
  • "Location of Bramshill House in Hampshire". Mention that Hampshire is the white bit (if that's the case)?
I think it's obvious, especially given the window highlighter outlining the county which is the same shape. Wouldn't it look daft saying "shaded part in white" after Hampshire?
If that's common, then it's fine. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Much of the work, most notably the entrance, was executed by German builders". "most notably" looks out of place. Is it notable that the entrance was built by Germans, or is the entrance particularly notable in itself?
Removed the middle part.
  • "It now houses the National Police Library." "now" is always hazardous; it's unlikely that the police library is still there.
  • Is the building itself a bit off level, or do the first few photos just make it look that way? (Not vital, as this is a nomination of the article rather than the photos.)More later. EddieHugh (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Not that I know of, might be the photograph.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


  • "2,500-acre wooded park". May as well convert this one, too.
Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Can't see what you're referring to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Convert to ha. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There's variation in units: sometimes "ft", sometimes "feet"; check for others, too.
Still to do (2 in Original house), unless there's a reason not to. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "steward's room at Windsor". "Windsor Castle"?
I'd have thought it obvious from previous mention but OK.
  • "bought the property from Sir Stephen Thornhurst". Are you using the full name because it's the first mention in the para? It's full in the previous sentence, so could be shortened.
Well, it was the previous section, but I've shortened to just Thornhurst.
  • "In 1347 he obtained" cf. "In March 1605,[12] Edward la Zouche". Comma or no comma? Check all others, too.
I think it's necessary with the 1605 one, but with the 1347 the context of the sentence I think it's more appropriate without for flow. If anybody else insists that the 1347 sentence must have a comma then I'll consider it though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that they're used inconsistently ("In 1347 he obtained"; "In 1673 it was the property"; "In the 1880s the library"; "In 1935, the house"; "In the early 14th century, Sir John Foxley"), but no-one else seems to be concerned. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "A house was earlier planned on the site". The chronology and plans are unclear here. When does "earlier" refer to, and was the proposal for the PoWales to live in it (what happened to the plan)?
Unknown I believe, all we know is that a house had been planned for him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Lord Zouche bought the property from Sir Stephen Thornhurst in 1605". Is the wikilink sufficient to indicate that the picture is of Z, not ST?
I think so, I think it's obvious, and clicking the link we'll soon find out!♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "the maids' chamber was of very high standard". "a very high standard" feels natural to me, but feel free to demur.
  • "Edward la Zouche" (twice). If this is the short form of "Edward la Zouche, 11th Baron Zouche", can't it be even shorter?
  • Consider putting Sporting events as a lower sub-heading than the others in the History section, as it's not chronological.
I disagree, the sporting events were prominent in the 17th-19th centuries in particular I believe, certainly belongs before 20th century material.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Location. Would going from big to small be more logical (i.e. swap sentences 1 & 2 around)?
The location section? My thinking is that you want to describe its location as if providing direction to the property, so putting it in its wider geographical context and approach roads first and then inner lanes I think seems a better way to describe it, at least in the way that my brain works.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. But isn't the current arrangement: position relative to villages; position relative to towns; approach roads; internal? EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Tweaked as suggested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "internal police training". What made it "internal"? Is there a less ambiguous alternative that could be used?
Good point. Presumably I think it is referring to training police who are already established rather than newbies, but I've removed as I agree it seems odd.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ronald Nall-Cain's motto [...] was adopted". Adopted by what?
The motto was adopted by the police.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Daily Mail reported the police". "reported that the" feels natural, etc., etc.
  • "were criticised for lavish spending on the estate". Perhaps indicate when this happened, as the implication is that it was in the late 1980s, but it was actually later.
Added "subsequent".
  • At the risk of sounding like a potential buyer of a small house, how many (bed)rooms does it have? I've got down as far as Architecture, so will continue later. EddieHugh (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Thankyou for your points. I'm not sure, I could work it out from the 1880s plan, but then there lies the problem of what the police did to the building, were rooms merged or now have a different use? Judging by the ground floor rooms I'd guess they didn't touch anything technically as it is a Grade I property. If there's no source to support how many bedrooms it currently has then it's probably best avoided. Looking at the plan though I count seven bedrooms and one in the wing and one "bed chamber" if that counts as one, so I could say something like "As of the 1880s the house had eight or nine bedrooms" or "The plan drawn up in the 1880s indicates that the house had seven bedrooms, and another bedroom in the wing" and source it to Shaw's book on the page the plan is. I think that would acceptable, what do you think?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
There's some relevant info in source 28, including "The mansion, which was built between 1605 and 1615, has 15 bedrooms, a long gallery, chapel, lounges, a mezzanine and a number of 'magnificent state rooms' which have now been converted into banqueting halls". It also summarises some recent additions in the grounds. Incorporating some of this stuff, especially if different from the old plans, would be good. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The other 7 or 8 bedrooms must be on the second floor then. I'll add some of this, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

(Hopefully) final batch:

  • "Much of the work was executed by German builders, part of the workforce which replaced the Italian artisans who had left England following the accession of Elizabeth I in 1558". Earlier, it's stated that the building began around 1605. It seems unlikely that people arriving around 1558 would still be working then. Is there more clarity available on this?
Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Reworded.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The plan of the house is unusual, partly because of its incorporation of the earlier building; it". Is "it" the house or the earlier one?
It is the house, yes.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The southern façade, unique for the period,[47] was described by Nikolaus Pevsner as "among the most fanciful pieces of Jacobean design in [England]".[39]". Was the unique bit that NP used those words to describe it? If so, it's not much of a claim. The first words are "among the", which rules it out of being "unique".
I'll remove "unique".♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is three storeys high and features three sets". 3 storeys is stated in the previous section.
Yes, but the initial is a brief overview and I elaborate on it in the second by mentioning the three bays.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "layout on the second and top floors". In the UK, the 2nd floor of a 3-storey building is the top one.
Changed to "first" floor.
Not changed yet! EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Can't seem to locate it, can you be more specific?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
North and south section. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The mansion is richly furnished with period pieces". Is this still the case, following the 2014 sale? Same question applies to lots of other descriptions.
Yes, it would be very unlikely that the house was stripped, the pieces belong to the Grade I listed building.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "but in the end rejected them for another set". Needs "he" or a restructuring.
added "he".
  • "the "Wrought Room", named for the "wrought" hangings of the bed". Something more descriptive would help someone who isn't sure of "wrought".
Not sure on that one either!
Still to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be OR though? The source doesn't explain it and it would be pure guess work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
If no-one knows what it means, best to remove it ("named for the "wrought" hangings of the bed"), I suggest. EddieHugh (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Two of the bedrooms, the two "White Rooms", were originally connected to what was called the Flower-de-luce Room, but the doors were boarded up". There's no "Flower-de-luce" on the plan, so what was/is this?
Good point, not sure, it's not shown on the plan as you say, but then again, neither are the two white rooms.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Unless I've missed it, there's nothing on the interior of the second floor.
Could find any mention of it, nope.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunate, but if there's nothing available, it'll have to do. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "An inquiry cleared him". Of what?
Murder of course! Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "who hunted fox and deer (and collected butterflies) there". Better to avoid brackets here.
  • "separate listings for other structures near the house, including". "including" entails that there are others unstated. Is this correct?
Yes I think so.
  • "taken away by Sir Denzil Cope's". Who's that?
Presumably the owner of Bramshill at the time, it was in the hands of the Cope family.
  • Capitalization in Refs looks inconsistent.
Which one? If you mean CEPOL it's supposed to be like that, its an acronym.
That one's fine. I mean the contrast between, for example, "Walls and Gate Piers to West of Bramshill House" (all content words capitalized) and "Playing host to many a ghost" (only the first) or "First-Class Matches played on Bramshill Park" (all except one). EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I made as many of them as consistent in caps as possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Public Consultation, Bramshill House, Hampshore". Change to "Hampshire".
Well-spotted :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Notes. Add full stop at the end of #38?
I added a citation template, should come naturally now.
  • There may be no official requirement, but putting the categories in alphabetical order looks nicer. I'll reply to your replies later on. EddieHugh (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Not heard that one before LOL. The categories are fine and in an appropriate order!
Easier to find a specific one if someone's hunting through a long list, but not to worry. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Some exceptional points here, many thanks EddieHugh.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My responses are indented and signed above: some things are still to be dealt with; anything not indented and signed I regard as dealt with. Thanks for the prompt updates.EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

One more thing:

  • "5000 volumes". To match some prices and areas, "5,000" (with comma) would be better. EddieHugh (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

EddieHugh I've done my best to address all of your points, cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I count four things added on 09 Feb (UTC) remaining to be responded to. EddieHugh (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Care to list them below? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
They're the ones dated 9 Feb... Starting points:
  • "Bramshill appears to have been an important local sporting and social venue, as numerous paintings"
That one was reworded to reflect what the source gives.
The only info in the source stated is "This page contains some of the paintings and prints that can be seen at the National Fencing Museum." That doesn't justify what is written in the article's paragraph. EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
EddieHugh OK, I've shortened it to simply describing the prints depicting games, the reader can draw their own conclusion from that without it being OR.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "2,500-acre wooded park"
  • "layout on the second and top floors"
As I said I couldn't find any real details on the upper floor, presumably just bedrooms.
The point was that '2nd floor' is the same as 'top floor' in British English, so shouldn't it be '1st floor' and 'top floor'? EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, OK, I'll change to top floor.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "the "Wrought Room", named for the "wrought" hangings of the bed" EddieHugh (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
As I said I have no details on what exactly they're referring to and given that this is the case it would be OR to try to guess and elaborate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You don't know what it means, and neither do I. If no-one knows, it's meaningless and the bit on "wrought hangings" should be cut. EddieHugh (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, removed it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

All of my comments have now been dealt with. Thank you for your patience and responses. EddieHugh (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: I read this knowing absolutely nothing about the subject, and I was pleasantly surprised on how much of an interesting read it was. Excellent work Blofeld! -- KRIMUK90  06:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Krimuk90!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • Is there a wikilink for "Grade I" in the lead section?

That's about the only comment I have on this article. It would be better to archive the references to prevent dead links. On the whole, it is a fantastic article and it has my Support. — Ssven2 speak 2 me 06:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sven. We don't actually seem to have an article on Grade I listed building. If we did I think it would be worth linking of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Simon Burchell[edit]

Support This is a very nice looking article, and I'll make any comments as I go. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

  • The last one-sentence para in the lead looks a little lonely. Maybe it could be combined into the previous para?
  • The Legends section says that 14 ghosts have been reported, but only 2 are mentioned in the text. Is any further information available to fill out this section? If not, I have a number of books on Hampshire folklore and may be able to dig something up.
I couldn't find anything much, not beyond the unreliable ghost type sites, but if you have a book and could find something further I'd be grateful Simon.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
All 14 ghosts now accounted for... I have lots more info available, but what's in the section now should cover it sufficiently. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Query from Hchc2009[edit]

I mostly really enjoyed the article. I had a couple of concerns on the sourcing though at the FA level, and would oppose at this stage on that basis (but am happy to be convinced otherwise - please push back if you disagree with me!)

  • I wasn't convinced that P. Lal, writing for the Sunday Tribune in India, was a "high-quality reliable source" for British folklore concerning the house (the newspaper article is used six times).
The newspaper itself seems to be a reliable source, and he really seems to have done his research into writing it and you'll find what is documented in other sources. Perhaps it seems strange that it's an Indian newspaper not a British one. But most journalists writing on general topics are not experts in the given fields.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I also wasn't sure about Penny Legg ("Folklore of Hampshire"), Donald Parr ("The Web of Fear") and Wood and Kolak ("A Ghost a Day: 365 True Tales of the Spectral, Supernatural, and ... Just Plain Scary!"). Legg is a generalist writer, teacher and journalist, albeit with an interest in the paranormal (she notes that "as an Associate Member of Haunted Southampton Ltd, I have joined several investigations and as a writer I have met and worked with many people interested in the paranormal"). I wasn't convinced though that she has represents a high-quality reliable source for folklore studies (she doesn't produce peer reviewed work, as far as I'm aware etc.) Parr is similarly probably best known for books of reprinted old photographs of the south, and again doesn't (as far I'm aware) have any formal education in folklore, or publish in peer-reviewed works, higher quality publication houses etc. Wood and Kolak don't give any indication of what research they carried out for their book; their publishers describe them as being a "a fifth generation psychic/trance-medium" and "a paranormal scientist", but again, there's no evidence given of academic qualifications in the field, peer review, high quality publishing houses etc.
Wood and Parr books were superfluous sources anyway and have been removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • With regard to the Legg book, it is one of a series of well-researched county folklore books, it's a cut above the normal "county haunting" type books and covers various aspects of Hampshire folklore. To be clear, with folklore we are dealing with stories in circulation, and would not necessarily require a scholarly article. In the context, I would consider it an acceptable source. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd agree it is better than the usual ghost story books (!), but I don't think the publishing house in question peer reviews its publications or does independent fact checking, so I'd be cautious about using it at FA level; to be honest, my concern in many cases is that "stories in circulation" becomes a shorthand for "repeating what another author has said previously", as opposed to genuine research into whether a folklore story is really still active in a particular area, or was actually widely known at an earlier point in history. Does Pegg give any indications of the sorts of research she carried out for this bit of the book? (have.g. archive work, oral histories etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of high quality folklore works out there (including by very strong publishing houses, peer reviewed journals etc), but I wasn't convinced that these were good examples of them at the FA level.
  • Footnote 98 probably needs a page number. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
It does appear to have a page number.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
you deleted the original fn 98! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Justice of the Peace. Justice of the Peace. 1987. p. 871." - this seems to be in a different format to the rest of the article (e.g. no volume number etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Added the volume number but anything else didn't pick up in the google book ref maker. You can view the source here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I can only see the snippet view. It looks like it should have a title and an author though, as it seems to be an article of some sort. Could you check the first page of it? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You know what? I was actually considering removing the haunting section at an earlier stage as it's verging on WP:FRINGE theories and pseudoscience. I once had an interesting conversation with User:Jehochman over it. I think a basic summary is appropriate, given that it is supposed to be one of the most haunted houses, but to expect an encyclopedia article on an architectural piece to have a detailed (and scholarly at that) coverage of things like ghosts and other things which are widely believed to be make believe stories really has no place in an encyclopedia. I don't think detailed coverage is encyclopedic. I'm sure many others here would agree. This is an article on an architectural piece, a country house, not ghosts. The summary we have is adequate and comparable to several other FAs on country houses with a summary of apparent hauntings. I've already covered the ghosts which have received the most coverage in multiple sources and that is satisfactory I think. Simon's made some good additions today which now appears to have it all covered, but I really wouldn't want to see this bloated out into a massive section. I found the best sources which were available to me in covering it at the time, most coverage is on amateurish websites which certainly wouldn't cut the mustard as reliable sources. In all honesty there's very few "credible" authors on things like ghosts, I'm sure you could question most of the books written on topics like that, regardless of the credentials of the author.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Ghost stories? We're moving too far into FRINGE territory for my liking. A brief piece outlining that people believe there are ghosts is one thing, but detailed scholarly research on the supernatural is thin at the best of times, let alone about specific,properties. - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The house has a significant body of folklore associated with it, and I would expect that to be briefly covered in the article. An overview of folklore is not the same as arguing for the reality (or not) of ghosts. Note that there is an FA on the Cock Lane Ghost, that the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane FA has a section on ghosts, Little Moreton Hall is a more recently promoted example; and I am sure that I could fish around for more examples, and that the section here is titled "Legends", not "Supernatural phenomena" or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If (as the article states) people believe that there is a ghost in the stables etc. then it is a notable fact... But the fact of that belief needs to be reliably cited. (i don't mean that we need sources to prove that there is a ghost, just reliable sources showing that a reasonble number of people believe, or believed, it to be the case). Similarly, claims about stories being told, reported etc. need to be reliably sourced. At the moment, I don't think the quality of the sources justifies the detail of the section. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There is nothing wrong with covering notable history and legends. Jehochman Talk 03:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I think a summary is fine as Simon says, coverage of legends does offer an interesting angle to coverage. But expecting all of these scholarly sources and in depth coverage studying them and to not consider it FA worthy because of it.. What sources Hchc2009 would you consider reliable for this then? I would prefer it if you gave specific examples and illustrate the abundance of better sources on the topic. Imagining that there's lots of high quality sources on this isn't going to produce results. An article on something like Legends of Hampshire or something you might expect something more detailed. This is an article on an architectural piece which at best should have a basic summary.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Dr B, to clarify, I'm not suggesting that the material here should be made any longer. Rather, I'm arguing that in the absence of reliable sources, we shouldn't be giving so much weight to some of the details in the section (the solution to there not being high-quality reliable sources on an topic isn't to use low-quality sources instead...!) To use Simon's example of Moreton Hall, you've got examples of the best and worst of sources in its "Superstition and haunting" section: you've got material from a Manchester University Press volume (reliable in my opinion) and material from a self-published ghost website mainly concerned with selling the author's own books (not particularly reliable in my opinion). I've noted my general concerns with the reliability of the sourcing above, but examples of where this then causes me particular concerns in this article include:
  • "King Michael I of Romania is said to have asked to be moved to another room during a stay there..." To me this gives an impression that the event is essentially fact - that the King did ask to be moved because he thought he repeatedly saw a ghost. I'd be seeking a reliable source for this statement, and a better elaboration of whether the King really did move rooms, or if this is an unsubstantiated story that someone has just told about the King at a later point etc. Given that the King is still alive, and covered by BLP policy, if it's unsubstantiated then I don't think it should be included. If the story is factual, then we should be saying so as well.
The Legg book looks to be a reliable source, "reportedly" asked to be moved I think is fine, and it's actually better from a BLP perspective to word it like that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm don't think that's the way that the BLP policy would prefer us to have it. It states that "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." In this case, I don't think that Legg gives any information on where she came by the story, which is effectively making it an anonymous account and, to me, pretty close to gossip. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I've reworded it to "According to folklorist Penny Legg". Yes, we're an encyclopedia here to report what has been documented in reliable sources. I can think of some recent articles by some very credible editors here which have passed FAC and who've stated "According to the author" to deliver a claim. It's fine I think now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the degree to which the author is a reliable source I think... Where do you stand on the "Ghost a Day" and the other sources? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The Wood book source is superfluous anyway, so I've removed it. Which remaining sources do you think are shockingly bad? All I can see the legends section uses now are a government source for haunted, the Legg book, the Tribune newspaper source and the historical sources Page and Cope, all of which clearly meet RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with you over Legg - I can't see any evidence that either her or the publisher is known for reliable fact checking, peer review, explanation of the research techniques used etc., which are important attributes for high quality secondary sources. I feel similarly about L. Pol in the Tribune (He doesn't seem to be a particular expert in the field, and I can't work out where his information is actually supposed to have come from, other than the breakfast table in 1986!). Page and Cope look like reliable sources for claims in their period. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The Legg source is published by The History Press - "the UKs largest local and specialist history book publisher; publishing over 500 history books a year including Local History, Military History..." I'd argue that you're unlikely to find a better source on covering the Legends of Hampshire and the house, so if you still dispute the legitimacy of the source I can see there's little way of changing your oppose vote. Tell me, who do you think is an expert on such a topic. What existing sources would be better than the Legg book and the Tribune newspaper source?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The volume of publications coming out of a company isn't a good indicator of reliability - evidence of fact checking or the use of peer review typically is. I don't know of any reliable secondary sources for modern folklore on the house, but I don't think that is a good reason to use unreliable sources - shortening the section so as to avoid undue weight would be a better solution. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say the volume of publications is, but I'm arguing that it appears to be a leading publisher in its field. Simon is an experienced researcher, and I'll trust his judgement that it's a credible source for the topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Grey Lady's husband is believed to haunt the stables..." - believed by who? Lots of people? A few? One or two paranormal investigators?
  • "The chapel drawing room is also said to be haunted..." The "said to be" phrase is used in various places here, and always begs the question "by who?" By lots of people? By the tour guide? By a couple of paranormal investigators? By a previous Victorian writer? Again, good sourcing can help to determine this, and therefore the weight that should be given to it in the article, but I don't think we have the kind of reliable sourcing at the moment. (The "reputed to..." phrase also makes an appearance in various places, which has similar issues - who believes it to have this reputation? Like "said to", it's a good example of a WP:WEASEL phrase.)) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I never feel comfortable with covering things like ghosts on wikipedia. It's finding a way to write it so that it seems credible and neutral. Some people believe it, yes, I could change it to "allegedly", that might read better. I've changed as many examples of "is believed" or "is said" as possible. All we know is that they've been reportedly seen, I'm sure paranormal investigators would claim seeing the lot, but stories like this are usually seen by a wide range of people who turn them into legends. Not sure what "self-published ghost website" you're referring to, given the topic I think the sources are generally very good and meet WP:RS.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hchc2009 I agree that we should try to use the best sources available, but I believe I've done that. If you could find accessible sources online which are superior to the Tribune source for instance then we might get somewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Answered above - I don't that using an unreliable source is the right response to a paucity of reliable secondary sources on an aspect of an article, nor in keeping with the relevant Featured Article criteria. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've done my best to address what you've said, we'll have to agree to disagree on the reliability of the Legg book and the leading Indian newspaper source, I'm sure it'll have no bearing on the outcome unless somebody can really illustrate superior sources on the topic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, probably best to agree to disagree (NB: if you ever want some recommendations for reading on cultural research methods, gathering oral histories, etc., though, do let me know! It is an area I know pretty well.) The references are looking a lot better now though, with the weakest ones pruned out, and the language is better. The two Justice of the Peace magazine citations definitely need authors and titles though - I'm nearly 100% sure that the magazine used them during the '60s and '80s. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld: Can you acknowledge/action Hchc's last point about the magazine citations? @Hchc2009: Given that you've agreed to disagree on other points, would this be the last actionable concern you have? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ian: yep, we're in disagreement about the sourcing and have agreed to disagree. :) I think the author and titles are needed for the magazine articles though. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to address most of his concerns Ian, he even said "The references are looking a lot better now though, with the weakest ones pruned out, and the language is better." The source is here 3rd one down. I couldn't find those details, google gives very little. Perhaps somebody with library connections here like Tim riley or somebody could find the author and title?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I can only see the snippets format, which isn't much use... Do we know which editor originally added them? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I added the source recently in response to your concern about reliable sources making the claim!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: What shall I do about it? The details are not given by google. I thought it a good source to demonstrate the most haunted claim. Eddie Hugh has done a spot check I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you considered dropping the publishers an email? The magazine is still published I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a link of where to contact?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The link from Justice of the Peace Magazine was broken when I tried it last time, but I think [6] works and has some contact details. I suspect a google search might also produce an editorial contact address. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support and comments. I learned a lot about this property in the course of helping to gather photos for it. It's a fine article about the estate and its rich history. I also noted that the magazine Country Life has featured Bramshill House many times over the magazine's history; we have photos from 1899 and 1903 Country Life articles about it. When the news came that the estate was to be sold, Country Life was there again, with a news article saying that Bramshill House "was said to be one of England’s most haunted country houses" in their July 25, 2013 issue. If this is the only problem hoding up the article's promotion, here is the link to the Country Life story. We hope (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WH, and for the free images you found recently!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: I don't think it's worth going to all that trouble over two sources, one of which was easily replaceable. I've replaced one with a Telegraph source and removed the other, the motto I thought seemed a bit trivial and out of context anyway. We should be OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

DrB, did you mean to link to the Telegraph article in fn 93? I can't see anything about ghosts or hauntings in that article... Hchc2009 (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The cite has now been changed to one from July 2013 from Country Life magazine and the quote is "said to be one of England's most haunted country houses." We hope (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is another newspaper source I could add, but I think that will suffice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Noted the above -- sorry I didn't stop by after the earlier ping. I'll probably walk though the FAC list in the next day or so; unless something else pops I'd expect to close this. Tks all and cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

2014 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is being nominated to join the relatively short tradition of other Sounders winning Open Cups ('09, '10, and '11. It should meet or exceed the FA standards set by other articles seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Showcase.

As the primary author, my usual shortfall is general copy editing. I feel that any issues can be addressed in a timely manner. Also, I used Sounder At Heart as a source in a few instances. The sources from that site relied on writers who have press badges and not general user generated content. Please let me know if any improvement is needed to reach FA and I will be on it immediately. Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi—can you state whether this is a Wikicup entry? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. I am participating in the Wikicup.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia: This does need a good copyedit. Examples of issues:

  • “the The Cup”
  • Carlos Valdés (footballer)|Carlos Valdes]]”
  • “Pappa, who had just returned from international duty with the Guatemala,”
  • “There first big chance came”,
  • ”Casey received a yellow card at the 57th minute an was later replaced”
  • ”were able to effectively counter Philadelphia's attempts attack in the second half”
  • ”While being praised as good tactics by one Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins due to a muscle strain.”
    • This now reads "While being praised as good tactics by a Sports Illustrated writer, Schmid told reporters that the decision to not start Martins was due to a muscle strain" which brings up some new issues:
      • Presumably the intent is that Schmid was being praised for good tactics (not as good tactics), and that Martins was not started due to a muscle strain (not the decision...was due to a muscle strain).
      • The relationship between the two halves of the sentence is not immediately clear. A quote from Liviu Bird clarifies what Martins not starting has to do with good tactics—but the quote is back in the Extra time section. Suggest moving it from Extra time to Post-match for better context; the quote is technically postgame commentary anyway.
That is better. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ”THe Sounders received”
  • Image captions should not end with a full stop unless the caption forms a complete sentence (and none of the current captions does).

This is not an exhaustive list; someone needs to go through from top to bottom for grammar, spelling, etc. That being said, though, the copyedit that’s needed here is not a particularly intensive one, since there is not a lot of complicated language or nuance in this sort of article, so it should be pretty fast and easy once you find someone to do it. Maralia (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. The GA reviewer did a good job then I added a few lines (most are the ones you mentioned). Nothing like a good 'ol FAC to remind me that I suck at typing. All mentioned are fixed. Also, I removed the periods from the captions. I tend to agree with you but have added them in articles I work on due to the insistence of other reviews at GA and FA. Can you point me to something in the MoS for future discussions?Cptnono (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
RE the image caption punctuation question, you can refer people to these:
MOS:FULLSTOP: "Sentence fragments in captions or lists should in most cases not end with a period."
MOS:CAPTION: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."
This part of MOS is fairly longstanding policy; off the top of my head, I'd say it's been in force since at least 2008, so reviewers should be familiar with it. People do tend to trip up over that last bit concerning multiple sentences/fragments, though. Maralia (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Maralia: Coemgenus went through it a couple times. Do the prose look good to you now? Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. Thanks!.Cptnono (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I will take another look, but my eyesight is pretty compromised right now (busted glasses, lousy contacts) so it might take me a few days to make it through. Maralia (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Ugh... take your time. I tried using Gorilla glue on my glasses the other day and they are now half broken with glue dried on the lenses.Cptnono (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
This is definitely in better shape after Coemgenus' review. I made a few minor copyediting fixes tonight. Some other remaining issues:
  • “Attendance at PPL Park would only be 15,256, the lowest for an Open Cup final in six years.” - This sentence is out of place in the Pre-match/Venue selection section.
I found a line in the post-match review of the game that it ties in with.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • “The Open Cup is not held in as high regard as winning the MLS but it is still considered an important achievement.” - by "winning the MLS" you mean winning the MLS Cup, yes?
Fixed and wikilinkedCptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”The 2014 Open Cup was an exceptional challenge due to the MLS season being interrupted by the World Cup.” - Doesn't this happen every four years? 'Exceptional' might be overkill.
Fixed by removing "exceptional" and added that it was due to player call-ups.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”The home team kept control of the first half and continued creating chances into Seattle's penalty area.” - Can you reword this? Google finds almost no other uses of "creating chances into" and I gotta agree it's super weird.
Almost naughty... Changed to "...and continued creating scoring opportunities."Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ”As runners-up, the Union was awarded $60,000.” - This mixes singular (was awarded) and plural (runners-up). In the US, we would go with the singular "As runner-up, the Union was awarded".
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Maralia (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Maralia: Thanks for being so thorough.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

It's nice to see this here. I actually attended this match, but I promise not to add any original research! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "While both teams created multiple chances, Philadelphia unsuccessfully attempted a comeback and took firm control of the match at the end." This seems to suggest the Union took control of the match at the end. Didn't they lose? Or do you mean they looked to be in control before the start of extra time?
I see what you mean. I added a couple lines to expand on the thought. I am trying to convey the credit reporters gave to Philly.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Philadelphia Union
  • "Philadelphia were almost eliminated..." I understand the convention in European soccer is to treat teams as plurals, but in American sports we treat them as a singular noun ("Philadelphia was almost...") Unless there's some differing convention in U.S. soccer I don't know about.
Fixed 2 times.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "winning silverware" Kind of informal.
Fixed 3 timesCptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Seattle Sounders FC
  • "The Seattle Sounders won the title..." You should say which title. The Open Cup? The MLS championship?
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Seattle were leading..." Again, probably "was", I think.
  • "the game went to kicks" This might be impenetrable to an outsider. Maybe say "penalty kicks" with an appropriate wikilink.
Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Philadelphia had never been to a final and it was their first chance at winning silverware since their inception 5 years earlier." You say this earlier. Maybe something shorter, like "For Philadelphia, it represented their first-ever chance at a trophy."
Nice. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "depth that could traverse" I don't think "traverse" is right here. "Withstand" maybe. "Survive"?
"withstand" works.
  • "The all-time record between the clubs was Philadelphia with two wins and Seattle with three." A little fuzzy. Maybe something like "The all-time record between the clubs stood at 3–2 in favor of Seattle."
Agreed. Fixed.
First half
  • "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left. He was continuously able to get past Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." I think the prose could be improved with more active verbs, less "to be" and "to have". For example, the sentences quoted above might be better tightened up as "The Union began to pick up the pace with Andrew Wenger playing wide left, where he repeatedly passed Yedlin to the byline or cut back for shots." See what I mean? The verb we're concerned about is "to pass" -- Wenger passed Yedlin -- not that he was able to pass him.
A dozen instances adjusted.Cptnono (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Second half
  • Active voice also helps clear up the writing. Instead of "No substitutions were made at halftime", you could say "Neither team made a substitution at halftime." More direct.
I made a few changes. Does anything else jump out?Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "In Injury time..." Should "Injury" be capitalized? I was going to change it myself, but I wasn't completely sure.
You might be right. I couldn't tell from the main Wikipedia article and changed it to "extra time".Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Extra time
  • "Martins, Dempsey, and Pappa were able to effectively counter..." Why not just "Martins, Dempsey, and Pappa effectively countered..."
Fixed.Cptnono (talk)
  • "...when he was able to make header on the Sounders goal." Here we have the "was able" problem again, and I'm also not sure of the expression "make header". I watch a lot of soccer, but I'm no expert on the terminology.
I think one of my favorite sports writers uses it or something. Ripped a bunch out.
  • "The final was Philadelphia's first chance at a championship in their five-year history." You could probably lose this line -- you've said it twice already.
Agreed. Fixed.Cptnono (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The performance was poor enough..." This sounds like you're talking about the teams' performance. I assume you mean the internet feed didn't work right? Should clarify.
  • Nice article. It was more enjoyable than the forty-five minutes it took me to get out of the parking lot in Chester that night. --Coemgenus (talk) 03:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@Coemgenus:. Wow, nice stuff. I think some good adjustments were made. I hope the game was a blast (regardless of who you were supporting)!Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • These changes look good. I made a few more copyedits--if you think they change the meaning of what you've written, please feel free to revert.
  • In the Seattle section, you link the 2010 and 2011 finals, but not 2009. Is there no article for it? If not, it wouldn't be wrong to include a redlink to encourage creation of that article.
It is linked a couple paragraphs above.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You could also use a citation for the last sentence. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I ended up removing it. There wasn't anything in RS relating the deal to the 2014 final so it was a little out of place.Cptnono (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, looks good. I'm happy to support.--Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

At the moment I don't think the prose is at FA level. I'm not going to oppose immediately, but I think some work remains to be done here. The problem is not that there are grammatical errors or specific places with poorly chosen words or phrasing; it's that the writing is often flat and lacking any rhythm. For example, the lead -- particularly the second and third paragraphs -- reads like a staccato series of short sentences, with no flow between them. If you look at the lead of hermeneutic style, or German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations, two other FACs I've recently reviewed, I think you can see that those paragraphs flow more smoothly -- the sentences are varied in rhythm and length, and it sounds more like a narrative. To put it another way, a well written lead sounds like someone interesting explaining the topic to you; this article's lead sounds like someone reciting some of the key facts. Try reading the lead out loud while imagining that you're telling an acquaintance about the game. Would you use this phrasing? I doubt it; you'd use connected sentences, and you'd make it into a narrative. That's what needs to be done here.

The body is in better shape than the lead, but there are instances of this problem throughout; see the Seattle Sounders section for more examples. I have read the article twice, once fairly closely and once skimming, and didn't see much else wrong other than the prose style; I'll come back and take another look once the prose is addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I'm admittedly flat and boring when writing prose to keep it to the point. The fear of being to over the top in my fandom is always there and I am not Charles Dickens (CenturyLink Field is probably boring as hell to anyone who isn't interested in minor details about architecture and the local teams). Did you have ideas on lines that can be improved during your read throughs? I know that asking you to rewrite entire sections is out of the question but I would love any thoughts since it would help this and other articles.Cptnono (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind doing some rewriting for you, but I can't promise I'll have time. One thing you could try -- and I'm serious about this; I think it will help -- is to read through the lead a couple of times to get into your mind the key points, and then roleplay explaining the game to someone else, and video or record yourself doing the explanation. Explain it as you would in real life -- you'd try to make it interesting, rather than just reciting the facts. Transcribe that version and see how it differs from what you've got at the moment. Try it on just one of the paragraphs and see how it goes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Well wow, you were right. I like the boring prose of The World Almanac but decided to recite it in the bathroom mirror instead. It is a couple feet away from my apartment's front door so now I sound crazy (it is all bachelor's on my floor of the apartment and I know at least 3 of the neighbors are soccer fans). I played with two paragraphs in the lead and the Sounders road to the final section. What do you think? Obviously I want to get this to FA now but this was a good learning experience for other articles even if this has to go through a second round in the future. Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's a big improvement! I'm glad that helped. I'll take another look tonight or tomorrow; in the meantime, can you tell me if you've gone through the whole article to fix similar issues? The places I mentioned were the ones where I noticed the problem most, but you might try reading the whole article out loud to yourself and see if you spot other places where it could be improved. I'll do a copyedit pass when you tell me you're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Edward II of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Edward II, an ill-fated English monarch who remains a famous figure in modern films, plays and art. The article reflects the current academic scholarship on Edward, and has been through Good and A Class reviews; I believe that it also meets the criteria for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class ... and I noticed that I missed some misspellings, so take this support with a grain of salt. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Support: All my concerns have been addressed. Really like this article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this article, both in terms of general interest and the prose itself. I'm finishing A Distant Mirror, which dovetails nicely into this article. But there are minor prose issues, a little missing info, and one very confusing passage. I'm opposing only on that last one, the rest are merely comments.

    • "to help secure peace with France, but war broke out"... what war?
      • I've added an explanation. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • But does the war in question have a name? Maybe a page here on the wiki? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not that I can find. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
this might be the one. May I offer an assist for some copy editing? auntieruth (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, and yes. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation", do we know what sort of engine?
      • I don't think so, but will check further. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "he was knighted in a ceremony at Westminster Abbey", this confuses me. Was it not the case that a knight was a rung in the feudal ladder that he would have been part of by birthright? Is this knighting not redundant? I may just misunderstand the role of knighthood, but if that's the case I suspect I'm not alone and little expansion here would help.
      • Knighting ceremonies were a major event in the medieval period; I've added a bit to the article on knights, and wikilinked to that. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "before then permanently exiling Gaveston", "then" is redundant and reads oddly to my eyes.
    • "same way that it might do in the 21st century", ditto for "do".
    • "Edward gave Isabella a psalter as a wedding gift", tricky link in here, which I always get annoyed at - I wanted to know what a psalter was, not the details of this particular one. Suggest something along the lines of "Edward gave Isabella a psalter, now known as the Isabella Psalter, as a wedding gift"
  • I'd be keen to avoid repeating psalter twice in the same sentence; the article now explains what a salter is in the first sentence, which should help. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Gaveston that he had stolen royal funds and had purloined Isabella's wedding presents", simply "stolen royal funds and Isabella's wedding presents". "purloined" is not a common term, and given the context it seems to suggest it means something different than stolen, which it doesn't.
      • Purloin isn't quite the same as stolen; it carries meaning of misappropriation, which is a wider concept than simple theft. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, under threat of excommunication should he return, where he would be given estates to support himself". This is a confusing statement, and I believe it should be broken into two sentences. But which is it... "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, where he would be given estates to support himself. He was threatened with excommunication should he return." OR "Edward resisted, but finally gave in, agreeing to send Gaveston to Aquitaine, and was threatened with excommunication should he return. However, Edward said he would be given estates to support himself if he did."
      • Simplified a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • " but which offered to grant Edward", remove "which"?
    • "The Pope agreed to annul Gaveston's sentence of excommunication"... Ok here's the item I think needs to be addressed one way or the other. The statement above suggests this was threatened, but not carried out ("instead sent Gaveston to Dublin") seems to be at odds with the statement only a few lines above, which say it was threatened but never carried out. The next mention of the topic is later in the article and appears unrelated? This is the only problem I think needs to be corrected.
      • I've tweaked the wording - see if it makes more sense now. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm still confused about this, but it's more than just the wording. Apparently the Pope actually did threaten to excommunicate Galveston. Is that correct? If so, why? What does this purely internal matter have to do with the pope at all? And why would this be an excommunication-able (??) offence? It has nothing to do with the church. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I've clarified a bit more. The article probably isn't the place for a longer discussion of the role of the Church in the Middle Ages, but in brief, the Church and the medieval state were typically closely entwined. Kings of England typically depended closely on their senior clergy as administrators and government officials, while appointments and many clerical matters were of interest to, and influence by, lay rulers. Events such as the fate of Gaveston would not have been seen as an "internal" matter, but rather something the Church had a valid interest in. Excommunications could be made for various reasons, including as a tool to encourage good behaviour or to enforce peace agreements, as in this case. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
That small edit is a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley, and Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders", suggest splitting in two, "Edward retreated to his estates at Windsor and Kings Langley. Gaveston left England, possibly for northern France or Flanders"
      • I've gone for a semi-colon, see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
    • stopping at Famine and criticism for now, getting on a plane back to the GWN.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Maury, thanks for this. I'll get on and action tomorrow morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, all finished. It's a great article BTW! Only two last items and they're minor:
    • "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may have been hastened by depression following his imprisonment." - is this anything more than idle speculation? I suspect not, and if that is the case, I'd recommend simply removing this statement.It doesn't really add anything to the content unless we its something that is widely commented on and argued in historical circles, at which point that is the notable point. It doesn't appear to be that, though.
      • It's an argument put forward by one of his two major biographers, so I think it's worth keeping in. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
        • As there is no way that a biographer could ever know one way or the other, I suggest adding that caveat - "According to one of his biographers, it is possible that...". Or am I incorrect, is there some sort of physical evidence they offer for this opinion? 21:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Phillips puts forward his reasoning in the peer-reviewed biography, partially drawing on the Brut source, and partially on modern psychology; we're already putting forward the statement in the conditional tense, so I'm not personally convinced we need to caveat it further. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, striken. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
    • The image in the Battle of Boroughbridge appears to show the opening dispositions of the forces? In any event, it conveys very little information to the reader. I poked about a bit looking for something more suitable but failed. I'll keep looking. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the image in question. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I should be able to dig into the content and sourcing on this over the weekend, I hope. Hold this spot. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdyth. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ealdgyth: Do you have some time for this now? We'd really appreciate a source review from you as well as any other comments you can make... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Looks like I'm going to be snowed in tomorrow so I'll try. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Battle-of-Boroughbridge-en.jpg: what is the source of the information presented in this map?
  • File:Philippe4_eduard2_ludvikNavarra.jpg: source link is dead, and life+70 is redundant to life+100
  • The jewellery is PD, but we should say so explicitly
  • File:Seal_of_Edward_II-2.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Oriel_College_Charter.jpg: the uploader is not the copyright holder. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't find the source of the information in the Boroughbridge image on the file; will check further.
  • I've still can't find it, so have removed the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Original sources of the Phillip4 file has now been given (the Bibliotheque de Nationale archives)
  • PD element of jewellery given, plus right of panorama tag added
  • Seal's US PD tage added
  • Oriel charter tag corrected.
  • Thanks Nikki! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose (with 2 points to make)

  • per above, I did an extensive copy review. I made some changes, all noted by section labeled "tweaks". Mostly they were related to wordiness, verb tense, clarity, or a few minor issues. I also added some dates and a couple of links for clarity, and I did move a paragraph within a section (Isabella and Mortimer).
  • Point One: Parliament or parliament. You've referred to it both ways, and given that his father relied on the institution, and its regular meetings, I suggest Parliament (with a link). But this is up to you. You can do the article-wide search and replace. But it should be consistent. And you might explain why it is only small p parliament, if that's the option you select.
  • Point Two: You refer variously to "the earls" and "the barons". Well, I know what you mean, and amazingly Wikipedia doesn't have an article defining these, but we could perhaps use some clarity on that.

Well done on this. Very well done. If you want me to look again I'll be happy to do so.auntieruth (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers AuntieRuth. Parliament is now sorted, and I'll see what we can do about a link for earls and barons... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Hchc2009:, would you mind posting bits from the relevant section from Philips on depression? I tried to find this source locally but failed, the nearest copy appears to be about 75 km from here, and it is not available in any online form that I could find. None of the sources I did find mention this, although one apparently quotes Philips as saying "that he was murdered or helped on his way to death, either from a pre-existing illness or from physical decline and depression" If this is an accurate summation of the original, I reiterate my concern that this is simply one person's speculation based on nothing. None of what I could find were in anything that might be considered peer reviewed, and as Philips appears to have no medical background and I can't find any trace of publications of a medical or scientific nature, I am again growing concerned about undue weight being given to what appears to be an idle claim. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

His "mental likely to have been very poor. It is easy to believe that Edward was deeply depressed...this might have been enough to bring about or accelerate his death". Phillips is of the two major modern biographers of Edward, and the Emeritus Professor of Medieval History at Dublin, with the book in question published by the Yale University Press, so I would personally consider it a reliable source for the statement in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC) (NB: Yale has an internal and external academic review process for manuscripts for publication). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
So this is simply Phillips' speculation. It doesn't even try to hide this, it is clearly expressed as such - "is likely", "easy to believe", "this might have been". Lots of other things might have been too, given the same inputs. "It is easy to believe" he suffered from exposure and "this might have been enough to bring about or accelerate his death". Both of those claims have exactly the same amount of factual data to back them up - none whatsoever. If you wish to include Philips statement in the article, fine, but it needs to be clearly stated that "Philips speculates...". The article spends the right amount of time saying that other stories about the cause of death are speculation, and I see reason to do the same here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I disagree with you on this one. It is an opinion of a leading historian, and the article text makes clear that this is not a straightforward fact but a "maybe": "If Edward did die from natural causes, his death may...". The argument that Edward could have been depressed having been overthrown by his wife and her lover, chased across Britain, having lost his best friend in a gruesome execution, then being removed as king by the nobility and church and locked in a cell in Berkeley Castle, is not exactly an extraordinary or contentious claim (if anything one might argue that it verges on the obvious!) - and Phillips notes the Brut chronicle's statements about Edward's state of mind as part of his argument. I'm not aware of any other historian that has argued against Phillips' position here. It is acceptable for professional historians to interpret evidence (although not for ourselves to do so as Wikipedians!) and for those interpretations to be used in articles, provided that our text reflects the cited source. If we disagree with a professional specialist opinion, the place to argue the case is in academia, rather than on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Can you outline the evidence from Brut that you refer to? Perhaps this is what I am looking for. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
You'll be after Brut, section i, 252-3 as per the 1906 edition according to the footnote. Not the easiest document to interpret though, but at least it's not in Latin!:) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I found a copy at Robarts online (those aren't sections but page numbers). It's in English BTW, not latin, which is handy. So if this is the source of Phillips' suggestion, there is absolutely nothing that one might take to be any sort of evidence of any medical condition, especially when you consider the lengthy discussions of Merlin, clearly invented dialog, and other issues. If this is the source, I reiterate my original point: I strongly recommend this section be stated with something to the effect that "Philips has speculated that..." to make it clear that there is no physical evidence for this point, and that Philips himself makes no such claims. It's speculation, and as such, should be given the same disclaimers as the other bits of speculation, like red hot anal pokers. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Um, yes, I know it's not in Latin (as per my previous commment!) As I've noted above, interpreting Brut is difficult (people do whole university courses on interpreting this sort of document), which is why we don't interpret or work with primary medieval sources on Wikipedia. You need to understand which component of the narrative came from which source (both human and documentary), the influence of medieval symbolism and mysticism, the translation of Middle English etc. - which is why we use reliable secondary sources, not primary ones. Personally, I thought that the references to Edward's state of mind and health were fairly clear in this part of the Brut text though - on. p.252, he complains to his gaolers about his mental suffering and ill-health, and goes on to make a rather depressing declaration that he is a nothing in prison, beaten down by God etc. the start of page 253, for example. I think we may may need to agree to disagree though; I think that the wiki text summarises Phillips' argument accurately, and isn't contentious with other historians - you clearly don't. If you disagree with Phillips' use of chronicler sources per se though, then that's probably something you need to raise off-wiki in academic circles. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support - Really a very impressive article which I thoroughly enjoyed. Happy to support once the minor issues below are addressed.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "The King probably deliberately chose the castle as the location for Edward's birit was an important symbolic location for the native Welsh, associated with Roman imperial history, and formed the centre of the new royal administration of North Wales." - aside from the spelling error, this sentance doesn't make sense - I think there is a word missing.
  • Not really "the location for Edward's birth was an important symbolic location" still feels like it should be "the location for Edward's birth as it was an important symbolic location" instead.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, with you. See if it's right now. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Alfonso is spelled differently in the lead and the main text - be consistent.
  • "but war broke out again in 1294" - when was there war with France before? I don't think its been mentioned.
  • "The earls of Pembroke and Surrey were embarrassed" - Link Surrey as he hasn't been mentioned before.
  • "and his decapitated head was sent back to Edward" - this reads like its Butler's head you're talking about. Rephrase please
  • "Edward ordered the arrest of any French in England" - any French citizens or any French people read better.
  • "When granting Gascony to Isabella, Phillip IV appeared to have been divided up his lands" - dividing?
  • "not least because of his abuse of high-status women" - in what way did he abuse them?


  • Sources:
    • Childs source - is the title really "'Welcome My Brother': Edwards II, John of Powderham and the Chronicles, 1318"? (the plural Edwards is what is sticking out at me)
    • Otherwise, the sources look fine to me. I see you're leaning heavily on Phillips, which is as it should be - it's the most recent scholarly biography. Since the ODNB entry for Edward was written by Phillips, not much use in using it.
    • I spot checked some information against Phillips - footnote 59 (pp. 111-115), footnote 81 (Phillips p. 102), footnote 122 (p. 161) and footnote 199 (pp. 374-375) - all were correct summaries of the pages but without close paraphrasing concerns. I also checked footnote 252 to Doherty pp. 74-75, which was also correctly paraphrased without being too close.
  • Childhood:
    • "but he was certainly supportive of the sport." - examples?
  • Early campaigns:
    • "deploying his own siege engine in the operation" - does this mean one he built or just one under his control?
  • I don't think the original text was clear; I'm presuming it would have had to be constructed on site, with with some parts pre-built off site and potentially some local timbers used for major framework etc. How far he got involved this I'm not sure. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Piers:
    • Do we have an article for the Meaux Chronicle?
  • No, but I've just created a redirect and linked. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Tensions:
    • "in a febrile atmosphere" - maybe "heated atmosphere"?
    • link for "the marshal of the royal household"?
  • Linked, although the target isn't ideal. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ordinances:
    • Shouldn't "parliament" be "Parliament"?
  • I'd followed some other writers on this period by lower casing it; I think they prefer it to emphasis the process, rather than as a fixed institution in the sense of the later "Houses of Parliament". Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • "cutting out the Frescobaldi bankers"? Slangish, since I assume you mean that they stiffed the Italians...
  • Death:
    • "he led a powerful faction in England" - I assume we mean Lancaster here? It's a bit ... twisty though.
    • I really do not agree with the link to "show trial" in "At a show trial Gaveston was declared ..." The concept of a show trial is very definitely a modern one, very much tied to modern propaganda. Phillips just says "A semblence of a trial may even have been held before two royal justices..." which seems to make it unclear whether or not a trial was even held. I don't have Chaplais, but my copy of The Three Edwards by Prestwich (first edition), does have a trial taking place, but he doesn't appear to consider it a show trial either. Prestwich does say the grounds for the trial were questionable. Prestwich in Plantagenet England says "It seems that a trial of sorts was held, and that Gaveston was sentenced to death on the basis of the Ordinances. His death, however, had little of the character of a judicial execution and more of a public lynching." Even Doherty, much more of a sensationalist writer, just says that Gaveston "was put on trial before hastily assembled royal justices and condemned to death as a traitor."
  • Tensions:
    • Shouldn't it be "Parliament" in "thanks to parliament" (And elsewhere in the article)
  • Despenser War:
    • "the recently elevated Hugh Audley and Roger Damory." Wasn't one reason these two opposed the Despensers was that they thought Hugh the younger had gotten more of hte Clare lands than he deserved?
  • War with France:
    • NOt fond of the easter egg link in "Duchy of Gascony flared into open war in 1324" .. can we reword to actually use the name?
    • "In 1323, he insisted that Edward come to Paris to give homage for Gascony, and insisted.." repetition
    • Why the sudden name here: "sending instead John de Warenne, the Earl of Surrey." we've been discussing him previously, right? Link/etc should go with first mention.
  • Abdication:
    • "sentenced to be drawn, disembowelled, castrated and quartered" link?
  • I may be misremembering, but I think it was linked to hung drawn and quartered at one point, and another editor disagreed and removed it, on the basis that the article wasn't on that specific topic; I don't think I could find a better one though. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Burial:
    • "existing pilgrim attraction" - I think "existing pilgrimage attraction" would be slightly less jarring.
    • "The tomb was opened by officials in 1855, uncovering a wooden coffin, still in good condition, and a sealed lead coffin inside it." Did they not open the lead coffin?
    • "cost of over £100,000" - conversion?
  • Kingship:
    • Need a cite directly on "was lazy and incompetent, liable to outbursts of temper over unimportant issues, yet indecisive when it came to major issues"
    • Need a cite directly on "was not so much an incompetent king as a reluctant one"
  • Are you sure? There are citations for both at the end of each sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Historiography:
    • "Views on Edward's sexuality have continued to develop over the years." Develop how though?
  • Note 9 "Edward's chancery" ... link chancery?
  • Note 14: I had to laugh at "While agreeing that there is no documentary evidence available, Ian Mortimer takes a more radical perspective..." isn't that a pocket description of Mortimer - radical perspective?
  • Note 22: "see David Carpenter's review, and Roy Haines's analysis" ... can we have a bit more of the actual location in the note, rather than the citations?
  • Note 25: Need a direct citation on "a decadent extravagance, fitting the familiar stereotype of the king" and "conventional, and perhaps even rather dull"
  • As per the above - there is a citation at the end of the sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Close to supporting, but a few things need fixing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose—At 115kb almost certainly WP:TOOBIG


Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Uncle David[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an experimental independent film produced in Britain in 2010. Engaging with LGBT themes, it stars the performance artist David Hoyle and includes a soundtrack featuring Boy George. A GA since May 2013, it has gone through FAC three times, each time failing due to a lack of interest, perhaps as a result of its niche and controversial subject matter. Fourth time lucky ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - I'm still satisfied with this article, 4 nominations in. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • See 3rd nomination, agree with all points, fair-use OK.
  • 2 additional images since last nomination, CC or released into PD with sufficient info - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. It's well-written and well-presented. It flows nicely and seems comprehensive. It's absolutely not a movie I would ever see, and I'm surprised there is so much about it. Good work. Karanacs (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

In general, this article seems well-written and well-organised, and I found few things to quibble about. The article is far from my usual type but I suppose I should broaden my mind!

  • What age is Ryder supposed to be in the film?
    • It's not made at all clear; that's part of the ambiguity of the film. He's an adult actor who is behaving like a child. It leaves things enigmatic and disturbing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Over the course of a day, he filmed three shorts starring Hoyle and Reich," - Are you sure this is correct? Or should it be Ryder rather than Reich?
    • Well spotted; it has been corrected to Ryder. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ... "which had eight people inside of it during filming;" - "inside of it" is offensive to my ear.
    • Do you think "inside it" would be an improvement ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I do. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree - changed! Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the section "Release", the last third of the paragraph is rather off-topic it seems to me.
    • I understand your viewpoint although I am a little loathe to see it removed altogether because I fear that it would erode the otherwise comprehensive nature of the article. I'd be happy to listen to any other users' views on this particular issue, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "... a cast commentary track voiced by Hoyle, Ryder, Reich and Nicholls." - Nicholls has not been mentioned before. Who is he? On further investigation I find he is one of the directors but his name has been mis-spelled in this sentence.
    • The extraneous "l" has been removed here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That's all I can find for the time being. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It was suggested at the previous FAC that there was excessive use of "the latter" in the article and I see there are still three instances of its use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just seen this additional question but am unable to find any instances of "the latter" within the article. A quick look at the revision history of the page reveals that User:Mike Christie was kind enough to make the alteration. Thank you Mike! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I am now happy with the article and the improvements made since this review started, and support the candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "The next morning, he goes onto the beach to bury the corpse of his nephew in the sand, tearfully kissing the body goodbye before it is swept away by the sea": if it's buried, how can it be swept out to sea?
    • In the film, the body is placed in a shallow grave, and then covered in sand, however the outgoing tide is nevertheless powerful enough to take the body away. To hopefully avoid this problem in future, I've changed the text in the article to "The next morning, he goes onto the beach to place his nephew's body in a shallow grave, tearfully kissing the body goodbye before it is swept away by the sea." Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you add at least approximate dates to some of the key events in the last two paragraphs of the producton background section?
    • I have added one date ("circa 2008") and will look into the possibility of adding more. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      That's useful, but I suspect a little copyediting is now needed; you have "agreed to the request several years later" but it appears the delay was just c. 2008 to 2009. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • It's a tricky one. I suspect that the chronology as articulated by Ryder ("about 3 years ago", "After a couple of years") simply isn't accurate. The interview was posted online in November 2011, although not necessarily conducted at that time. However, assuming that it was conducted at that time, then Ryder and Hoyle would have first met circa 2008. If "a couple of years" then passed that would take us to 2010, yet that cannot be correct given that we know that Uncle David was filmed over five days in October 2009. So I think it best if I remove "circa 2008" altogether, as i really don't think that we can use that reliably. I will do some more investigating and see what I come up with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Looking at the interview conducted with Reich, the director, which was posted online in May 2011, we are given a few further clues. Here he states that the RVT Christmas show took place "2 years ago", by which I presume that he means Christmas 2009. However, if this show was the "genesis of the film" as he states, then Christmas 2009 would make no sense, because the film itself would already have been filmed in October 2009. In that scenario, the original Christmas show would have taken place in 2008. What I think we have here is an interview that was conducted several months before it was posted online; i.e. the interview was conducted with Reich when the film was first released (in 2010) but only posted online when the DVD of it was released (2011). Do you think that I should go ahead and state that the Christmas show took part in 2008 within the article, or would that be stretching our use of reliable sources ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
        I agree it doesn't look like you can be definite enough to put this in the main text. It's up to you, but one option would be to add a footnote that said something like "the dates for the events leading up to the film are unclear", and give the information you have. I asked for dates because it does seem a bit vague without them, but if the sources aren't helpful there's not much more you can do. My support isn't dependent on this; I'm going to go ahead and support regardless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes Sex-Gore-Mutants a reliable source?
    • This is a question that was posed during the articles' third FAC. There, User:Hamiltonstone stated that "I had a bit of a hunt. By conventional criteria, it is pretty marginal, but as a source of reviews that can be worth quoting it appears to have a long track record and has even been cited in a scholarly book. So I think it is OK. The few facts (as distinct from reviewer observations) on which the article relies on this source alone (really just the budget number) do not appear in any way dubious, but are consistent with the rest of what we know from other sources. My view is that it's sound." I would echo their comments again this time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      That's helpful -- I think I should probably do some digging myself and try to come up with an opinion; I'll post back here if I find anything useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      I can't find out enough to be sure. Once you've fixed the only remaining issue -- the issue with the dates above -- I'll support with the caveat that I would like to see the source review confirm that that site is reliable for our purposes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've done a copyediting pass; please revert if I made a mess of anything. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. My only caveat to the coordinators is that I am not sure about the reliability of the Sex-Gore-Mutants website, and whoever does the source review should try to evaluate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone. I thought this was travelling pretty well last time, and as noted above my one source concern was resolved. There has been some copyediting between the close of the last nom and today, and I hope that has improved the prose (though i wasn't concerned about it myself, i know Graham Colm was). I'm happy with this piece. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This article covers controversial negotiations between the German forces in Yugoslavia and senior members of Tito's Partisans in March 1943 that went beyond prisoner swaps and drew the ire of the Comintern. It recently passed Milhist A-Class review and I consider it is very close to or meets the FA criteria. Suggestions for improvements will be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • "the book did not accept the mythology": I don't know what this is referring to. The same phrase is used in both the lead and the body.
  • "In August 1942, ... Tito's Yugoslav Partisans had captured a group of eight Germans": if they were captured in August 1942 I would cut "had"; if they were captured before August and the date isn't known I'd make it "By August 1942".
  • "After their capture, Ott stated that he had an important message to deliver to Partisan headquarters, and after this had been arranged he suggested to the Partisans that his group be exchanged for Partisans held by the Germans in jails in Zagreb": it's not immediately clear what "this had been arranged" refers to. I think it means something like "after he had been taken to Partisan headquarters", but I initially thought it meant "after he delivered his message", before realizing that the last part of the sentence must be the message. How about: "tt told his captors that he had an important message to deliver to Partisan headquarters, and after he had been taken there he suggested to the Partisans that his group be exchanged for Partisans held by the Germans in jails in Zagreb"?
  • "Tito was willing to exchange the eight Germans": if Otto was part of the group, and the group was eight Germans, weren't there only seven left to be exchanged once Ott was sent as messenger back to the Germans?
  • Suggest linking "SA" to Sturmabteilung.
  • "the Abwehr were considering more than prisoner exchanges": unless I'm missing it, you don't say what more they might have been considering.
  • Velebit's role is not given when he is first mentioned; you do this for nearly all the other significant figures and I think it would be good to do it here too.
  • In the list of points made by the Partisans, I think it needs to be "stated that they considered the Chetniks their main enemies", to be in agreement with the structure of the other points.
  • "the short period of respite had in fact been a trap": I don't follow -- what made it a trap? A trap implies that the Partisans did something they would not have otherwise done that put them in a weaker position, but I don't see anything like that described.
  • "These negotiations resulted in the exchange of between 600 to 800 Partisans in total": shouldn't this also mention the approximate number of German prisoners exchanged?
  • "The negotiations first came to light in 1949": I'm not clear what "came to light" means. The British knew about the contacts at the time, so does this mean the first time the information was declassified or leaked in some way? Or does it just mean that 1949 was the first time attention was focused on the negotiations, because of the book?
  • "Martovski pregovori (The March negotiations)": not sure of the MoS rules here, but shouldn't it be "Negotiations", even though it's just a translated title? You use title case for the other translated titles.
  • Quite a few books are listed at the end of the article. A "Further reading" or "Primary sources" section might be worth it.
  • It looks like you haven't consulted some of the books listed; the ones you don't list as sources seem to be either older (Clissold) or not in English. Is there any reason to think you might be missing key material not covered in the other sources?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review, Mike. I believe I have addressed all your comments except the last point. I have some Serbo-Croat skills and have read several of the books in that language that are accessible. Some of the books are obviously quite old and have effectively been superseded by later ones, and some a a little suspect due to the location and time they were published, but I have no reason to believe I've missed any key material. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    I've struck the points I can see are addressed; unless I'm missing something I think the others haven't been fixed. For the "trap" question, I saw the comment about the Partisans being encircled in Case Black, but I still don't understand why the negotiations could be regarded as a trap. If the Germans were using negotiations as a trap, that would imply that if it hadn't been for the negotiations they wouldn't have been able to encircle the Partisans in Case Black. If they could do that without Case Black, it could be called a blind, or a front, but not a trap, I'd think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    Sorry Mike, my mistake. As far as Ott was concerned, he was sent to Zagreb "on parole" to facilitate the negotiations, but officially he was still a prisoner of the Partisans until the transfer was completed. The total number of Germans (and Italians and Croatian Home Guard troops) exchanged after the March negotiations is not recorded in any of the sources I've read. I'm going to go back over the sources on the "trap" issue and review the logic of it, as you suggest. I'll ping you when I'm done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    The number of Germans (etc.) exchanged isn't critical; if you have it, I'd say mention it, but if it's not in the sources it's not a problem. I would just clarify to the reader that Ott was still "on parole" as you put it; that will clear up the eight vs. seven issue. Once that and the "trap" issue are cleared up I expect to support; this is a very solid article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    G'day @Mike Christie: I have added a link and material regarding Ott's "parole". I have also reviewed the sources on the negotiations, and two things are apparent. Firstly, that the "trap" idea is limited to Pavlowitch, and secondly, he does not explain its basis, making it very hard to sustain his line of argument. I have therefore removed it, as a perspective too WP:FRINGEY for a FA. I hope that clears it up. Thank you for your review, you have been very thorough, especially with the theoretical aspects, and while my source review indicates I have got the balance right in every respect but this, the "trap" idea really did not have the legs it appeared to have when I included it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks; I've supported below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. All my concerns have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Les Holden[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Following on from Elwyn Roy King, Roy Phillipps and Garnet Malley, I present another Australian fighter ace of World War I to help commemorate the centenary of that conflict. Okay, you've probably never heard of Les except by association (his uncle co-founded car manufacturer Holden), but he certainly led an interesting life. King and Phillipps may have been the more successful aces, but Holden had the most eventful post-war career in civil aviation. Like them, he died too early, in this case on a routine passenger flight after having survived numerous brushes with death during the war, not to mention the wilds of New Guinea in the earliest days of its air transport industry. Thanks to everyone who stopped by the recent MilHist A-Class Review and in advance to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I copyedited this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments Nice work as always Ian. I have the following comments:

  • "after a brace of incidents" - "brace" sounds a bit odd in the lead. Could it be replaced with "pair" or "series" or similar?
    • It isn't a particularly common word these days I grant you -- altered!
  • "was posted to the 4th Light Horse Brigade as a private" - while this is what's in the source, you might want to double check it: I think that the light horse used cavalry ranks, so he was probably a trooper upon joining the unit (I could well be mistaken though!)
    • I daresay you're right but I double-checked his service record and the one reference to his initial rank I could spot said private rather than trooper...
      • Fair enough. I had a look at his file on the NAA website as well, and couldn't see anything either (it's a very badly kept file!...). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Holden claimed his first aerial victory while No. 2 Squadron was still flying DH.5s, before it began converting to Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5s in December 1917" - do the sources give a date for when he claimed this victory?
    • 'Fraid not, just that it was in a DH.5. You did highlight for me however that I should've had additional sources in there...
  • "Formed at RAAF Point Cook, Victoria, it transferred to the newly opened RAAF Richmond, New South Wales, on 30 June" - given that Holden presumably wouldn't have travelled down to Melbourne to fly with this squadron in the week or so between his enlistment and its move, I'd suggest trimming this to just say that the squadron was located at Richmond from 30 June. Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually it looks like he did just that! Adjusted accordingly... Tks for review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks again Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Excellent article. Karanacs (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks Karen! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Forrest Highway[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

For my fourth FAC, I bring you Forrest Highway, which connects Perth (via Kwinana Freeway) to Bunbury, Western Australia. It is one of the state's newest highways, opened in September 2009, but its history dates back to the settlement of Australind in the 1840s. Happing reading, and I look forward to your comments. - Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note - WP:WA and WP:AURD projects notified [7][8] - Evad37 [talk] 11:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 16:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I also reviewed, and did an image review. --Rschen7754 05:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment in the section Forrest_Highway#Forrest_Highway_after_opening the second paragraph refers to the opening of service facilities by the end of 2014, as it happens to now be 2015 that reads as dated. Gnangarra 03:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    Unfortunately I can not find any more recent sources that discuss the proposed service centres. I could trim off that last sentence if it would make it seem less dated. - Evad37 [talk] 08:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Gnangarra: I have a sources that explains the delay, and updated the article - Evad37 [talk] 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
    thanks caught this as I was heading out the door to take some photos of the area to address the issue consider me a support now Gnangarra 01:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. The article meets the FA criteria and it is well-written. --Carioca (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Prose review needed for Overuse of however and overuse of subsequently (often redundant, and redundant in this article). Also, when there is nothing in the See also section, it can be eliminated and the Portal links can be placed in the next section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've reduced and copyedited usage of however, removed the three instances of subsequently, and removed the See also section - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, one more. Per MOS:SURNAME and MOS:HONORIFIC, why are there several instances of Mr. in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Changed most of them, but I don't have a first name or even initial for Mrs Lyttleton - Evad37 [talk] 04:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Exhumation of Richard III of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm nominating this article in advance of the reburial of Richard III on 26 March 2015, an event which is certain to attract huge interest around the world. It has recently been through a GA review which it passed without any particular difficulties, so I'm confident that it's in good shape and is ready for consideration as a featured article candidate. Prioryman (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Note - Please check for dead or broken links; Refs 88, 91 and 102 for example. Graham Beards (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh. I missed that in my GA review. Sorry.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Review by 3family6[edit]

- Lead

  • The opening paragraph is a single sentence. That might be acceptable, I'm not that well versed in the MOS, but I think it should be expanded or merged into the following paragraph.
  • Agreed, I've done this. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a citation in the lead for the injuries to the skull. Per WP:LEADCITE, I think this is something that could be better explained in the article, and thus a citation is not needed. The second citation in the lead I think is okay, considering it is supporting a direct quote.
  • I've taken out both citations. The first isn't really needed as the injuries are already covered in sufficient (sourced) detail in the article. As for the second, the direct quote doesn't really need to be a quote at all - it's already attributed. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

- Looking for Richard

  • "...which she envisaged as 'a proposed landmark TV special'." - this should have a citation, since it's a direct quote.
  • " Its premise was a search for Richard's grave 'while at the same time telling his real story'.[28][18] Its objective was stated as being 'to search for, recover and rebury his mortal remains with the honour, dignity and respect so conspicuously denied following his death at the battle of Bosworth.'[29] - the prose seemed slightly repetitive here. Perhaps re-write as "Its premise was a search for Richard's grave 'while at the same time telling his real story',[28][18] with an objective 'to search for, recover and rebury his mortal remains with the honour, dignity and respect so conspicuously denied following his death at the battle of Bosworth.'[29]"
  • University of Leicester Archaeological Services is given as a redlink in the lead, but is not linked in its first appearance in the article body.
  • I was under the impression that links in the lead shouldn't be repeated in the body? I'll create a separate spin-off article to cover ULAS. Prioryman (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar enough with the consensus on wikilinks, in this case a redlink, in the lead, so I don't know. I'll leave that to your discretion (if another editor knows this consensus better, I invite them to speak up).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

- Citations

  • I've resolved this by taking out two of the deadlinks as unnecessary duplication, and updating the third. Prioryman (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, now that changes have been carried out.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "Richard was killed fighting Henry Tudor in 1485, at the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last major battle of the Wars of the Roses. The Welsh poet Guto'r Glyn gave the credit for Richard's death to Sir Rhys ap Thomas.": I don't know how to weigh the credibility of the second claim here, and I can't tell if it contradicts the first claim or not.
  • No contradiction, Thomas was a soldier in Henry's army. I've added "a Welsh member of Henry's army who was said to have struck the fatal blow" to clarify this point. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "contemptously": Typo? If it's accurate, you don't need a sic, I think.
  • No typo, but I'm not seeing a sic. Did I miss something? Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, I see it now. Fixed. Prioryman (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dissolution": use consistent capitalization
  • It's correct as it is. "Dissolution" with a capital D refers to the overarching event of the Dissolution of the Monasteries, while "dissolution" with a lower-case d refers to individual dissolutions of individual institutions. Thus "the friary's dissolution" is correct as this was an individual event while "the Dissolution" is also correct as this was the overarching event. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "geneticist Turi King continues to pursue a link": Whether this is okay depends on how you interpret the exception in WP:DATED for "current events". In general, it's better if you can give some kind of date, for instance "In 2015, geneticist Turi King was still pursuing a link ...", if that's true (but if it's not true, then the present tense is wrong, too).
  • I don't know if it's still true, so I've changed "continues" to "continued". Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The reburial will take place": In-text attribution would be a little better ... that is, "X has scheduled reburial ..."
  • I'm not sure about this - I don't have an attribution for X. Presumably some committee or other, but that isn't stated. I think it works OK as it is, to be honest. Prioryman (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support by Karanacs. This is an excellently written article, and very informative. I've watched some of the documentaries and read many of the newspaper articles, and you've done an excellent job of distilling the information down to an understandable level. Note that I did not check images. A few minor quibbles:

  • several instances of quotes without a citation at the end of that sentence
  • OK, I think I've found them all, but please take a look to see if that's the case. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Two different names are given for the journal of the Richard III Society - The Ricardian and the Ricardian Bulletin
  • There are two journals - The Ricardian appears to be the major one for the big articles, while the Ricardian Bulletin is a smaller one for news and updates, published at more frequent intervals. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " A table tomb was both the choice of the Richard III society in polls of Leicester people" - is that supposed to be "and" instead of "in?
  • That was pretty badly worded (not one of mine), so I've rewritten that line. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Close to a support. As others have said, lots of really good work here. A few minor comments on the prose from me:

  • "The dig was led by the..." would it be better to put this as "The archaeological dig..." in the first instance of its use? (or "The archaeological excavation...") (it felt a bit informal to me)
  • Good point - I've gone for the latter. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " show that £50 and £10.1s were paid to two men " - I couldn't quite work out if this was supposed to be two payments to both men (i.e. both got £50, and then £10), or if one got £50 and the other £10. Might just be me, but I'd have expected "£10 1s" or "£10/1s"rather than "£10.1s".
  • I've reworded and reformatted this a bit, see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although Richard's monument had evidently disappeared by this time, it was still known where his grave was." - I wasn't sure who this was referenced to. It seems to be Halsted, writing in 1844, in which case the best we can say now would presumably be that they believed they knew where the grave was; we don't actually know if they'd placed the monument on the same location where we've now found the grave.
  • I've added an additional source to make the attribution a bit clearer. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Around when Herrick's pillar was erected, the cartographer and antiquarian John Speed wrote in his Historie of Great Britaine (1611) that local tradition held..." unclear if the "around when" is the date of Speed's book (i.e. 1611) - or if this bit refers to "local tradition held" and is an earlier date that Speed is commenting about. The article doesn't give the date of the pillar being erected, so its hard to tell from reading this paragraph.
  • We probably don't really need that first clause, so I've taken it out to make the meaning clearer. Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The coffin certainly seems to have existed" - as written, this gives the impression that the coffin in question was Richard's, which turns out not to be the case later in the paragraph. I'd suggest "A coffin..."
  • "the possible location of the king's grave" - the MOS would have this as "the King's grave"
  • That seems inconsistent - there are plenty of other lower-case references to "the king". Which part of the MOS? Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • MOS:JOBTITLE I think covers the capitalisation of king. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree, it should be lower case. I can't see where in the MoS you are refering to. Graham Beards (talk) 10:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I presume this bit: "Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting. They are capitalized only in the following cases: [...] When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II." Is that what you were referring to, Hchc2009? Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep - in this case "the king" is a substitute for Richard's name, rather than a generic reference to a king or kings, and so should be capitalised. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "only the remains of men in their 30s, " - you'll want consistency of how you phrase "30s" as numbers (as here) or words, e.g. "thirties" (as in the lead) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed 30s to "thirties". Prioryman (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)


  • This is very good. I had only a few hiccups over some of the weak tenses (were given, etc.) but these don't impede my support. If you want me to address these I will do so. auntieruth (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Note -- Anyone prepared to sign of on sources for formatting and reliability? If no-one puts their hand up, Prioryman, pls list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do so on Sunday, if nobody's volunteered before then. Prioryman (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I will do the source review. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review

Capped resolved issues above. Just one more thing: the 2010 and 2013 Ashdown-Hill books don't seem to be used anymore, but are still in the bibliography. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Leaning to support: A very interesting and well-prepared article. The prose probably needs a final light ce, as I noticed a few instances of clumsy phrasing, but nothing serious is amiss. I have a few relatively minor points:

Burial site
  • Para 2: A few more dates would be welcome. When did Herrick acquire the site? When did he erect the monument recorded by Wren?
  • Unfortunately the date of Herrick's purchase isn't recorded (late 16th century seems to be all that's known), nor is the history of the monument. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by the description an "independent" historian? And we don't use prenominals as in "Dr. John Ashdown-Hill"
  • Independent as opposed to affiliated with a university. It's pretty standard terminology. I've taken out the prenomial. Prioryman (talk)
Greyfriars project and excavations
  • I'm a bit puzzled by the final sentence. It reads as though they restored the car park before the identity of the discovered bones was known. That seems extraordinary – is it the case?
  • Yes, it is. It was a working car park and a condition of the dig was that the car park was to be restored when the excavation work finished - which as you say was before the skeleton was identified. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
DNA evidence
  • I don't see the point of the quote marks in the first line. It's a statement of mere fact, not opinion or interpretation.
  • Good point, I've taken these out. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You have "matrilineal line" and "matriline" in the same paragraph. Do they mean the same thing? If so, the latter is less cumbersome.
  • "Matriline" is jargon, so I've simplified that instance to "line". Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Four living descendants of Gaunt have been located.." Only four? The entire British royal family is descended from John of Gaunt, for starters.
  • Yes, but none of them agreed to provide any DNA samples. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "exposing the brain" – I'd say "which would have exposed the brain" as the organ has long since rotted away.
  • Good point, I've made that change. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Identification of Richard III and other findings
  • You describe Michael Ibsen here as "a direct descendant of Richard's sister, Anne of York". In the earlier DNA section you rather obscure the issue by describing Ibsen's mother as "a 16th-generation great-niece of Richard's". The latter explanation is much clearer.
  • I've reworded the former explanation, which hopefully should be clearer now. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Richard III is thus the first ancient person..." I'm not too keen on the description "ancient person", which might easily be misunderstood
  • I know what you mean, but it's how the experts describe him (see [9]). I presume its meaning is appropriate to the context - I'd prefer to go with the experts on this one. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would place the paragraph dealing with the TV programme at the end, rather than in the middle, of the section.
  • Chronological order, as the TV programme was broadcast a few months before the second excavation covered in the last paragraph. The programme only dealt with the 2012 dig. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ...but on the other hand, I'm not sure of the relevance of the last paragraph to this article.
  • It's essential archaeological context. The 2013 excavation was a direct continuation of the 2012 dig and was treated as such by the archaeological press (note the source - number 86). Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Plans for reinterment
  • "...Leicester beating York by some 3,100 votes". What was the nature of the poll that produced this result?
  • An online petition on the UK government e-petitions website. See [10] for the results I quoted. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd keep the Buckley bit in, but I don't think I'd kick the section off with it. Perhaps at the end, as a wry conclusion.
  • Good idea, I've done this. Prioryman (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I look foward to supporting and seeing the article on the main page next month. Brianboulton (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I said earlier I thought the prose probably needed a little titivation. Now I see that Eric Corbett has been copyediting, and I'm inclined to trust his judgement over prose, so I've moved to full support. A worthy FA. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Close to support A good article which I would like to see as TFA if the following can be addressed:

  • The copyright of the main image is in dispute and its use under UK law would clearly be a breach of the photographer's copyright. How does its use here fit the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria?
  • I think that's a dubious premise - as long as the image is regarded as OK under Commons (and more importantly Wikimedia Foundation) policy then we shouldn't be second-guessing its status as individual editors. The question of NFCC doesn't arise since it's not treated by Commons or WMF as non-free content and as far as I know there is no requirement to utilize NFCC criteria for such images. If you can point to such a requirement then I'll be happy to run up an NFCC statement. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You misunderstand my point - I'm not second guessing. It says on the image page "As such, use of this image in the jurisdiction of the claimant or other countries may be regarded as copyright infringement." Does this make it free content or not? - I don't know. It may be that displaying this on the main page will precipitate a court case. One way to reduce that possibility would be to use a cropped image just showing his face as the do here.
I've been looking at this and the situation seems clear enough. The dispute was 6-7 years ago; there doesn't seem to have been any developments since then. Erik Moeller of the WMF has clearly stated the Foundation's position regarding such images here and Mike Godwin has done so here. The WMF position is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes." This particular image is a scan from a book. Commons policy is that the use of the PD-Art template is OK for a "Photograph of an Old Master scanned in from a recently published book", as in this case: "The WMF takes the view that as long as the reproduction is a faithful reproduction of the original it falls into the public domain." [11] This all seems to be quite clear and explicit - the position of the WMF and Commons is that it is free content and there is no suggestion anywhere that I can find that it should not be treated otherwise for licensing purposes. I'm really not inclined to attempt to change policy on the fly, especially as I'm not a lawyer (and nor, I would guess, are any of us on this page). Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. Richerman (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lead it says As a condition of being allowed to disinter the skeleton, the excavators agreed that, if Richard was found, his remains would be reburied in Leicester Cathedral but it says nothing about this in the article - where does it come from?
  • See the first sentence of "Plans for reinterment". It was part of the excavation plan which had to be approved by the Ministry of Justice, as it involved the disinterment of human remains. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it says there it would be "normal archaeological practice" to do so, not that it was a condition they agreed to which sounds like something more out of the ordinary.
OK, I see what you're saying now. I've added an extra ref to clarify this. Actually it's not out of the ordinary at all, it's a standard condition of archaeological licences for exhuming human remains. Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In Looking for Richard second to last paragraph In February 2009, Langley, Carson and Ashdown-Hill teamed up with two Richard III Society members – Dr. David Johnson and his wife Wendy – to launch a project with the working title Looking for Richard: In Search of a King, which she envisaged as "a proposed landmark TV special" There are five people mentioned who does 'she refer to? Also it doesn't sound right to envisage a proposed landmark TV special - you would envisage it as a landmark TV special or possibly you may envisage producing a proposal for a landmark TV special.
  • I've trimmed this to "envisaged as a "landmark TV special"." Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(added) Sorry, I missed your first point here. "She" refers to Langley - I've clarified this in the article. Prioryman (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of the Analysis of the discovery section seems to have the citations in the wrong place as citation 46 doesn't support the sentences before it although 47 and 48 support a lot of it. Where it says there was severe scoliosis of the spine, possibly making one shoulder higher than the other (to what extent would depend on the severity of the condition). I can't find any support for the bit in brackets, and surely the pathologist could tell from the extent of the scoliosis how severe the condition was?
  • You're right, someone seems to have added the bit in brackets. I've removed it. Prioryman (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of Bones it says The wounds were made from behind on the back and buttocks while they were exposed to the elements, consistent with the contemporary descriptions of Richard's naked body being tied across a horse with the legs and arms dangling down on either side. This appears to be synthesis as I can't find anything about it in the citations - only that they were possibly humiliation wounds inflicted post mortem.
  • I've added another reference (the Royal Armouries from citation 71) to clarify this. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's fixed it. Ironically the Royal Armouries’ curator says "My narrative that follows is a synthesis, based upon various elements from the historical accounts. Well, they can synthesise all they want :-) Richerman (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Citation 71 is a dead link
  • Fixed, it seems they've just redesigned their website. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Under Plans for reinterment it says the litigation cost the defendants £245,000. Who were the defendants exactly?
  • From personal knowledge, the University of Leicester and the Ministry of Justice; unfortunately the source doesn't say that explicitly so I can't state that in the article without straying into OR. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be great to have this on the front page around the time of the reburial as proposed. I wonder if anyone have raised this possibility at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. I know it can't be proposed properly until it's an FA but time is short as they are looking at proposals for that time period now. If they were made aware on the talk page that this one is going to be proposed, they may be willing to leave a tentative slot open for it. Richerman (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Thanks for addressing those points - happy to move to support. Richerman (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Richerman. @Ian Rose: - I think that's all the reviews completed now. Prioryman (talk) 08:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Not quite. One last point outstanding in the source review. Sorry! ;) —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Malvern Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): ceradon (talkcontribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the Battle of Malvern Hill, fought July 1, 1862, between General George McClellan's Army of the Potomac and General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. The battle ended in a Confederate defeat and effectively ended McClellan's campaign on the Virginian Peninsula. This is my first FA article but I dare not ask you to go easy on me (neither will you ;)). FAs are the best of the best. For the record though, I would like to get it to FA before July 1 so it can be featured on the Main Page. It may be jumping the gun but it is a solid goal :) Thank you, ceradon (talkcontribs) 01:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: You should probably mention that the battle is part of the American Civil War in the lead. Mattximus (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Is the Battle begins caption taken from somewhere else, or is meant to be a title? Its tone is a bit odd
    • Changed to "The Union ships Monitor, Galena, Jacob Bell and Aroostook launching missiles onto the battlefield at Malvern Hill." Good?
  • File:Sneden_watercolor_of_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • I think this is corrected.
  • File:GenGS.jpg needs US PD tag and author date of death
    • This should be done as well.
  • File:John_B_Magruder.jpg: author and date of death?
    • Not sure if this corrects it, but I changed the license to {{PD-US}}. It was published between 1861-1865, well before 1923 so must be in the public domain. Furthermore, the source (Library of Congress) doesn't say who the source is.
  • File:Revised_Union_battleplan_for_the_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Map_of_the_night's_march_after_Battle_of_Malvern_Hill.jpg
    • Instead of {{PD-US}}, tagged the images with {{PD-old}} and {{PD-1923}}. The author died more than 70 years ago so they're in the public domain. I don't think the exact date of publishing is necessary then right?
      • Not quite. We know that these images were created during the war, but they were in someone's diary, which is an archival source unless it was known to be published. Without more information we can't assume that PD-1923 applies. Was the diary formally published at some point, or was its first "publication" the digitization by LOC? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: According to the Virginia Historical Society, it was published in 2000 but there are no restrictions on use/re-use of anything in it. Excuse my ignorance of matters of files licenses but how should I play this lieu of that information. Just put a {{public domain}} tag on it and update it with "No restrictions on usage" and the VHS source. Thank you, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
        • VHS source link here BTW: --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Hmmm. I'm a bit confused about how VHS is coming up with their restriction notes. If we look at this record - where given the dates involved part of the collection is certainly copyrighted - it still says no restrictions. Same with several other recent (1980-1990s) records. This leads me to suspect that they are not including copyright in their consideration of usage restrictions. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
            • @Nikkimaria: I might have gone looking too far when the answer lay at the Library of Congress website where I got it from: "The maps in the Civil War Maps materials were either published prior to 1922, produced by the United States government, or both". source. By the way this FAC has been languishing for some time. Is this normal? --ceradon (talkcontribs) 22:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Union_barrage_at_Malvern_Hill_-_July_1,_1862.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Can I use this as a source? It's from the Hampton Roads Naval Museum. I could also use this as a source from the Virginia Foundation for the Humanities. Using the former would allow me to reupload a more clear, coloured version of the same image. Both of those seem to be reliable sources. In fact I can use both. The source at the VAF says it was published in 1863 and since it's necessary that I provide a date of publication, that's valuable. Thoughts? (By the way, thank you Nikkimaria for the image review.) Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 17:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe we can mark this as done as well. I've reuploaded a colored version. and added {{PD-art}} and {{PD-old-100}}. Both are applicable and together they prove that the image is in the public domain according to US copyright laws and most copyright laws around the world. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I'll be happy to help with copyediting after we get a support or two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC) Striking, there's more to do here than I have time for. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Thank you Dank. --ceradon (talkcontribs) 21:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment pending support I'll support this, after it gets some copy -editing. You've got a lot of dupe links, too. Let me know when Dank does his copy edit, and I'll give it another go-over for copy/prose. your source list doesn't include all in your footnotes (such as Sweetman or Rollyson). auntieruth (talk)

@Auntieruth55: Mike Christie has copyedited recently, did you want to take another look at the article now? @Dank: Just FYI... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Ian, there's more to do here than I have time for. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review: fine

  • did not do spot checks
  • sources cited include many of the principle works on the battle/campaign.
  • further reading section is a nice touch, and includes several important and readable works on the campaign. auntieruth (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you Auntieruth55. I removed the duplinks I found with Ucucha's script (I though I'd got them all but a whole bunch of them popped up when I used the script in the edit window.) Hey Dank, do you think this would be enough to endorse a copyedit Smile.png? Cheers, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 00:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Not yet. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go through the article; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • "McClellan's attempts to take the city were repeatedly held off by Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston. But when Johnston was replaced by Robert E. Lee, the Confederacy went on the offensive." Rather than start a sentence with "But", I'd suggest either joining these two sentences with a comma, or making it "When Johnston" at the start of the second one.
    • Changed to "However, when Johnston".
      I wasn't keen on the new wording so I've switched it around a little; let me know if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Collectively called the Seven Days Battles, Lee launched a series of counterattacks": rephrase -- Lee was not collectively called the Seven Days Battles.
    • Reworded to Collectively called the Seven Days Battles, a series of counterattacks against McClellan and his army were launched by Lee
      Also rephrased per my comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "By the next day, McClellan extended his battle line": either "had extended" or cut "By".
    • Changed to "had extended".
  • "By May 30, McClellan had already begun moving troops": why "already"?
    • Removed.
  • Should the caption say the bridge was created by Sumner's troops, rather than by Sumner? That's how the information on the image itself has it.
  • "Lee was ostensibly not feeling so reclusive": I like the idea here, but I don't think this quite works. How about just "Lee was less cautious"?
    • Changed to "Lee was less cautious"
  • "The resulting battle was a unique occurrence during the Seven Days": in what way?
    • Added , in terms of tactics and casualties
      I don't think that really fixes it -- the reader still doesn't know what it is that's unique about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Changed to The resulting battle was the only clear-cut Confederate victory during the Seven Days. While the sun shone, some of Lee's men had launched one attack after another over muddy, uneven ground against the Union line; all to no avail.
        Much better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "one mismatched attack after another": I don't follow -- they were overmatched by their Union opponents? Or they failed to coordinate their attacks?
    • one attack after another over muddy, uneven ground against the Union line
  • "The day after however": I'd cut "however", and I think you should give the date -- it's been a day or two since the previous date was given and the reader won't be sure what date we've reached.
    • Deleted "however" and added "On June 29"
  • "The battle's execution was uncoordinated, allowing the Federals escaped": looks like an incompletely edited sentence.
    • Yup, good catch. Fixed.
  • "This series of aggressions would come to be a part of the Seven Days Battles": I'm not sure what "come to be a part of" means here.
    • Reworded to This series of aggressions would be known as the Seven Days Battles
    • Tweaked a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "inviting battle; Lee obliged": there's nothing wrong with this, but you might consider making that a period after battle -- making the last two words a sentence on their own would be a rather nice dramatic touch.
    • Changed semi-colon to period.
  • "was distanced about two miles from": suggest cutting "distanced".
    • Deleted "distanced"
  • "Western Run creek, another tributary of Turkey Island Creek which, perversely enough, lay mostly along the eastern side of the hill and slanted into the northern side slightly": this sentence has no main verb, and I don't understand "perversely enough".
    • Reworded to Western Run creek was another tributary of Turkey Island Creek which lay mostly along the eastern side of the hill and slanted into the northern side slightly
  • Is there any chance of a simplified topographic map that could accompany the geography section? The description seems precise but a map is worth a thousand words.
    • Tried to find some on LoC and NARA websites. All of them have complicated sketches of where the Union/Confederate divisions were placed instead of a simple depiction of the hill's topography.
      Fair enough; it would be nice to add something like that if you ever do find something suitable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Longstreet ostensibly did not share Hill's objections": I don't think "ostensibly" adds anything here.
    • Deleted "ostensibly"
  • "Lee chose for the relatively well-rested units of": I think this would read more naturally without "for".
    • Deleted "for"
  • Several times you repeat the full rank and name of a general after introducing him earlier in the section. There's rarely a need for this unless it's been a while since they were mentioned; A.P. Hill and D.H. Hill are an obvious exception, but Longstreet should usually just be Longstreet after the reader knows who he is.
    • Cut several instances of this but I left several instances where it would say "James Longstreet" and "Stonewall Jackson" instead of just Longstreet and Jackson
      I did a few more; revert if you think I overdid it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Lee's Army of Northern Virginia would form a semi-circle enveloping Malvern Hill": it's not clear if this is a description of the plan or a description of what would actually happen. I think it's the plan, so I would make it something like "Lee's plan was for the Army of Northern Virginia ...". I also don't think a colon is the best punctuation at the end of that sentence; I'd suggest a period there.
    • Reworded to Lee planned for his Army of Northern Virginia to form a semi-circle enveloping Malvern Hill.
  • "the divisions of Stonewall Jackson forces and John Magruder": I suspect this is incompletely edited. Shouldn't it be either "the divisions of Stonewall Jackson and John Magruder" or "Stonewall Jackson's and John Magruder's forces"?
    • Yup, fixed.
  • "who held the battle of Malvern Hill as the first battle he'd ever commanded in": a bit wordy. How about "who had never before held a command during battle"?
    • Reworded to who had never before held command of a brigade during battle.
      Much better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The text says the order was unlikely to have been seen by Lee, but the quote box doesn't make that clear. I think adding a note to the quotebox would be worthwhile -- I read it before I read the text and assumed that this was verbatim from Lee.
  • "He corroborated his view with": this might be more natural as "This view was corroborated by".
    • Reworded.
  • "As evidenced by the plights of Major General John Magruder and Brigadier General Benjamin Huger, Malvern Hill would be no exception": I'm not keen on this wording, for a couple of reasons. It might be better to simplify it a little. How about "These misfortunes continued during the Battle of Malvern Hill, with both Magruder and Huger making mistakes in the deployment of their forces"?
    • Reworded
  • "destined to reach the day's battlefield": I'm not sure what "destined" means here.
    • Reworded to eventually reaching the day's battlefields
  • "a relatively less disparate condition": I don't think this means quite what you want it to. I think you mean that the army's disposition was more orderly and there were no serious errors in the disposition, as there were with the Confederates. How about "The Army of the Potomac's disposition in the lead up to the battle was more orderly than Lee's"?
    • Reworded.
  • "somewhat less precarious than Magruder": "precarious" doesn't seem the right word; there was nothing precarious about Magruder's mistake, surely?
    • Reworded to Brigadier General Huger and his men had found themselves in a predicament as delicate as Magruder's
  • "A.P. Hill sent one of his batteries to the right artillery position—his best one, supposedly": I'm curious about the source for "supposedly"; if this is truly an opinion, and not definite, is it worth attributing the source in the text?
    • Deleted —his best one, supposedly since it is speculative.
  • "the Rowan Artillery of the Brigadier General William H.C. Whiting's division": should be "of", not "of the"?
    • Yup, fixed.
  • "waked the wrath": this might be an American English vs. British English point, but I'd expect to see "woke the wrath", not "waked".
    • Seems either would have been correct in this case but nonetheless I changed it to "woke"
  • Since the story of the beginning of the battle doesn't reach 3:30 P.M. till towards the end of that section, it might be better to move the mention of the gunboats to that point, since the Galena didn't return till about that time. Or were the other two boats engaged earlier?
    • The source doesn't make this clear. There is evidence to suggest that the gunboats began their barrage at around the same time the artillery fight began to pick up (at about 1 PM) but this contitutes original research since no source directly states that.
      I think this is a problem as currently worded. The narrative in the beginning of battle section makes it clear that the artillery fire from both sides was underway well before 2:30 P.M., but the when the involvement of the ironclad and the boats is mentioned the only time context we are given is that the ironclad was not present till 3:30. I think it would be better to be clearer that the ironclad was not involved at the time the barrage began, and that the gunboats may or may not have been -- it's OK to let the reader know that the sources are unclear on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Why did Magruder think Armistead's men had been successful? And in fact how did he know what happened to them at all, given that Huger didn't know where they were?
    • He thought Armistead was successful because by the time he reached the battlefield, Armistead's men were halfway up the hill. (He might have thought that with healthy reinforcements, Armistead's men could advance. This was proven untrue when the first major charge of the day was repelled quite effectively by the Union guns) Huger didn't know where Armistead and Wright were because he sent them ahead the perform flanking actions on the Charles City Road to any Union forces they met. They didn't meet any Union forces because the road was clear. So they just marched until they reached the battlefield. Once they reached the battlefield they were ordered to replace Magruder and Huger. Benjamin Huger was a stickler for the chain of command and hated when anyone but himself gave his brigades orders. He was quite upset at Malvern Hill.
      Rereading I think this is OK; I think the material is all there. If I can figure a way to clarify it I'll try it but I think it's OK as it stands. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Equally grim as the visuals left from Malvern Hill's fighting were the casualty numbers": I think "visuals" sounds a bit anachronistic here, and I'm also not convinced it's a good comparision -- the sight of the dead and wounded isn't really a separate issue from the casualty numbers; they're just different aspects of the same thing. Comparing the two makes little rhetorical sense. I think you can make this just "The casualty numbers from the battle were grim."
    • Reworded.
  • "She recalled that they "breathed in the vapors" of the charnel houses": I wouldn't use "charnel house" outside quotes unless you specifically mean an actual charnel house; if it's a metaphorical use it's better if the original quote is used.
    • Added the full text of the quote.
  • "In fact, Lee reported that he'd taken some ten thousand Union soldiers prisoner": what does "in fact" mean here? If the point is the difference between the two counts of missing soldiers, I'd suggest being more direct -- perhaps "Lee reported that he'd taken ten thousand Union soldiers prisoner, a number significantly higher than the total reporting missing by McLellan."
    • Reworded to Enough Federals had fallen into Confederate hands that Lee reported capturing ten thousand prisoners.
  • Our article on Fitz John Porter uses the spelling with the space between the first two names; you're using "FitzJohn". It's apparent both are used, so this isn't relevant for FAC, but it would be nice if we were consistent across articles. Is there any reason to pick one spelling over another?
    • Force of habit actually. Wikipedia was the first place I'd ever heard FitzJohn Porter referred to as "Fitz John Porter" with space. The literature I'd read on the Peninsula Campaign always referred to him as "FitzJohn". Either way, I've changed all instances to "Fitz John" per precedent.
  • "James Longstreet might have incited the Confederate defeat": I'm not sure what the intended meaning is, but "incited" seems clearly the wrong word.
    • Changed to "instigated"
  • "Despite these occurrences, however": "occurrences" doesn't seem right -- I think you want to say something like "Despite these issues" or "problems".
    • Reworded to Despite these mishaps
  • "the same shell that wounded me wounded four other's in my company": is the apostrophe in the source? If so I'd add a [sic] after it.
    • Removed comma. Added accidentally.
  • "in good timing as well—mere seconds later": I'd cut this to just "seconds later".
    • Deleted "merely"
  • In footnote f, it should be "lay", not "lie", and you have three "however"s, as well as "additionally" and "also". These can surely be cut down. "However" is very easy to overuse and can often be simply deleted with no ill effects.
    • Changed "lie" to "lay". Did some rewording to correct the "however"s, etc.
  • "Sears goes on, saying that": suggest "Sears goes on to say that" or just "Sears adds that".
    • Done. Sears adds that
  • "nine-inch (230 millimeter)– and eleven inch (280 millimetre)–Dahlgrens": this is a bit hard to read, with the conversions as well as the separated hyphenation. How about just giving the non-metric units, then adding a parenthesis after "Dahlgrens" to give both the conversions?
    • changed to Moreover, nine-inch and eleven-inch (230 millimeter and 280 millimeter) Dahlgren guns and one hundred-pounder (45 kilogram) Parrot rifles

I've completed a pass through the article and will wait for responses before reading through again. Generally I think this is a sound article, well-organized and appropriately sourced. I have some concerns about the prose but I think they're mostly cosmetic. I've indicated some issues above and have made a few copyedits; I'll do another pass later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Everything above has been taken care of. I'll do another read through and copyedit, and will post any further points I find here; as before if my copyedits don't look right to you please revert. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Weak support. I have three more minor points that can be easily fixed.

  • In the geography section, some instances of "creek" are capitalized in the names and some are not -- can you just confirm that this is consistent with the sources?
  • "Davis and Lee eventually decided that large-scale pursuit of McClellan's army was careless": "careless" is surely not the right word; and the tense seems wrong too: do you mean something like "would be too risky"?
  • "Our success has not as great or complete as we should have desired": I didn't fix this because it's a direct quote, but I assume this is missing "been".

Other than these three points I think this article is now FA-quality, with a couple of caveats. First, I see that it has not had a A-class review from the Military History Wikiproject. Of course that's not a prerequisite, but in the absence of an A-class review I'd like to hear from someone with ACW expertise that this article does fairly reflect the scholarship on the battle; I'm just a layman on the topic and can't pretend to have reviewed this for comprehensiveness or balance. Second, I think the article would benefit from at least one more map. I think the basic topography of the area would be much easier to understand with a good map, and there are geographic features in the larger area that I gather are beyond the borders of the one map that we do have -- e.g. the James River. The current map is very good for its age, but clarity is as important as authenticity and as a reader I couldn't follow the battle as well as I would have liked to. I'd also like to be able to follow some of the action on a map (perhaps a different one): Magruder's misdirected march, and Huger's delays, are still vague to me because I couldn't place them in relation to the battlefield as well as I would like; and of course if the sources exist then the action on the battlefield itself could be illustrated too -- exactly where was Armistead's "successful" charge, for example?

I've indicated weak support above because of these two points, but really the addition of one or more modern maps is the main thing that would lead me to strike "weak" from my support. The comment about MilHist just reflects that fact that I can't honestly support on 1b and 1c of the FA criteria. The structure of the article seems just right to me, and the narrative is straightforward and clear. A very good article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Coemgenus[edit]

This article looks pretty good overall, but the lede, especially, has some problems.

  • The first paragraph is fine. The second is awkward. I'd start with a sentence describing how the Army of the Potomac got to the peninsula--whatever else historians think of McClellan, the idea to transport the army by ship behind rebel lines was a bold one, and sets up the story.
    • I was conflicted as when I should start the background. This certainly would be a neat addition. I've added and cited it in the main "Military situation" section, and added it to the lede.
  • "McClellan's attempts to take the city were repeatedly fended off by Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston." The passive voice shifts the action here. Why not "Confederate commander-in-chief Joseph E. Johnston fended off McClellan's repeated attempts to take the city."?
    • Done.
  • "Lee succeeded Johnston..." Maybe slightly more detail is warranted. Perhaps "After Johnson was wounded, Lee took command and..."
    • Done.
  • "...began taking up positions..." Probably better as "took up positions".
    • Done.
  • "The preparations of Lee's men..." Probably better as "Confederate preparations..." or even "Lee's preparations..."
    • Done.
  • "...caution caused Benjamin Huger to be late..." Might read better as "... an excess of caution delayed Benjamin Huger..."
    • Done.
  • "Nonetheless, it was the Confederates who started the battle..." Might read better as "Nonetheless, the Confederates attacked first..."
    • Done.
  • "The Union artillery triumphed in its defensive role, however. This was the story of the day, as attack after attack was repulsed by the Union." Could be tightened up. For example: "The Union artillery, however, was the story of the day, repulsing attack after attack."
    • A note on this though: I changed "The Union artillery" to "The Federal artillery". the double use of "Union" (it's used just a few words prior) might be jarring to the reader.
  • "...Lee was heralded as the savior of Richmond in Confederate newspapers." Again, passive voice is a problem here. Try: "... Confederate newspapers heralded Lee..." or "...the Confederate press heralded Lee..."
    • Done.
  • "...and began preparing..." could be " prepare..." That way we emphasise the important verb in the sentence (" to prepare").
    • Done.
  • "...Malvern Hill effectively ended the campaign..." If McClellan withdrew, it was fully ended, right? The word "effectively" weakens the point, unless there was some further action on the peninsula I'm forgetting.
    • Nope, not forgetting anything. The Campaign was over, I've deleted effectively.
  • I'll stop there. More to follow. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Military situation
  • The body of the article is mostly good, but there are passive voice problems here and there. Not that it's wrong to use it where called for, but sentences usually sound better with active-voice phrasing. I'd recommend a thorough read-through on this one issue.
  • For example: "This attack was repelled by the Union however, with heavy losses on the Confederate side." It would read better as "Union fires repelled the attack with heavy losses on the Confederate side." Or even: "Union forces turned back the Confederate onslaught, inflicting heavy losses."

God of War III[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2010 PlayStation 3 video game God of War III, the best-selling game in this series and one of PlayStation's most popular game series. This is the article's fourth nomination here. The last nomination was about a year ago. After that FAC closed, I took a break from Wikipedia and only made some intermediate edits here and there. I've recently come back and had this article copy-edited by the GOCE, which was something that was said was needed in the previous FAC. I will respond promptly to any issues or concerns. JDC808 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from hahnchen[edit]

  • Oppose
    • "first-person kills" deathcam is trivial and needn't be mentioned.
      • Done
    • "On December 8, Stig Asmussen..." - Really weird way to announce Barlog's departure. You begin with the Asmussen quote and the reader has no idea why you're doing that. Start off by making the point, "Barlog left the studio..." or something similar.
      • Done
    • Put the "interest in a cooperative mode" sentence with the other multiplayer mention.
      • Done
    • What's the difference between "early development" and "pre-release"? Why is the length of the game in one section, but the length of the script in the other?
      • What do you not understand about the difference? They are straight forward. Early development is just that. Pre-release is the few months before it was released.
        • That you moved the game length section from "early development" to "pre-release" suggests they are arbitrary. It's why I put the two questions together.
    • CGSociety link broken.
      • See the archive link (this is why they are there).
        • At the time of the review, webcitation was down.
    • I would move all the trailer talk commentary into release/marketing.
      • Why?
        • Releasing a trailer is not a development milestone, it's a marketing one. It'd also make the Sixaxis stuff sit together. Consider putting the controller stuff together anyway.
    • No need to quote Asmussen to say the trailer is in game. Just state it is in game and reference it.
      • Done
    • There's generally a lot of trivial dates in the article, "On October 28, 2009, it was announced that the Blu-ray version of the film District 9 would include a God of War III demo", "The Blu-ray version of District 9 was released on December 22". I think it very unlikely the reader cares about the press release at all.
    • This review of the soundtrack may be worth a mention.
      • Done
    • You don't mention who actually performs the soundtrack.
      • Done
    • The soundtrack's label seems to be Sumthing Else. Looks like they have some licensing agreement with SCE.
      • Done
    • Why use a niche source like Gamestyle?
      • What's wrong with Gamestyle?
    • "is some next-level stuff" tells the reader absolutely nothing.
      • That's what he says.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • One "particularly inappropriate" puzzle, zero context.
      • He did not explicitly state which puzzle.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • Calling the game "less diverse" is incredibly broad and bland, and the link is broken.
      • That's what he says. See the archive link.
        • Then its not worth quoting.
    • Consider moving the "most anticipated" awards to the marketing section.
      • Why? It was an award.
        • The awards section generally deals with the game's overall reception. Pre-release awards are essentially the reception of the marketing campaign.
          • I can see what you're saying, but I don't feel that it's enough reason to move this one award.
    • N4G is not a reliable source and I don't think a GameTrailers "Diamond Award" is an award at all.
      • Removed N4G, which happened to include the Diamond Award. I didn't really see a problem with including the award itself, but doing a quick search, I couldn't find a replacement source for it anyways.
    • Who are PS3 Attitude and why do we care?
        • They're a gaming website that posts news regarding PlayStation games.
      • Not all comments are oppose worthy, but taken together, they are. - hahnchen 18:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Some replies above. - hahnchen 00:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
          • A couple more things done. Going to work on the trailer stuff and the quotes that you said aren't "worth quoting" tomorrow. --JDC808 01:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
          • All points addressed now. --JDC808 17:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Still unconvinced about the reliability/notability of PS3 Attitude.
      • Removed.
    • The "No CGI" section feels clumsy, there looks to be redundancy, you're using a lot of lines to say something simple.
      • I'll work on it.
        • Trimmed back.
    • These articles, & are not used. Was there nothing in those articles, the "Making Of" or "Art of" videos that you felt were relevant to the development section? Camera work, animation and anti-aliasing seem interesting, I've not watched the videos.
      • I had never read those articles before. --JDC808 05:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I've read through the articles. I've added a new paragraph to the development section (and redid the subsections, although I don't know if "Technical" is a good title). --JDC808 18:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • hahnchen 11:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Been too busy, so I've struck the oppose, but haven't revisited the article. Did you watch the videos too? This soundtrack review states that there is an interview with the composers as part of the game's bonus content. (I'm not sure about OSV's reliability) The soundtrack section is pretty much all reception, and offers no composer insight. These articles could help too. [12][13] - hahnchen 23:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
        • These interviews, particularly about the engine, could be worth a mention.[14][15] - hahnchen 01:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
          • Okay, I'll read over those and see what I can do. --JDC808 06:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Read over and incorporated some. --JDC808 18:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

A few points I must raise.

  • The lead. Why must IGN be cited in particular, as the points from the review are generally shared across the reviews. Uncited generalities are allowed in the lead as long as the claims are backed up in the article proper.
    • Because it was IGN who stated those specific points.
  • The opening paragraph of the gameplay section look a little clunky to my eye.
    • The first piece that caught my attention: "The gameplay of God of War III is similar to that of its predecessors. It is a third-person, single-player video game from a fixed-camera perspective.[4] The player controls Kratos in combo-based combat, platforming, and puzzle games, battling foes drawn primarily from Greek mythology (including centaurs, harpies, chimeras, cyclopes, satyrs, minotaurs, sirens, cerberuses, and Gorgons). Other enemies were created specifically for the game." Possibly you could rewrite it as "God of War III is a third-person, single-player action-adventure video game. As with previous God of War games, the player controls Kratos from a fixed-camera perspective in combo-based combat, platforming, and puzzle games. The enemies are a mixture of creatures drawn from Greek mythology and monsters created for the game.
      • Done.
    • The next is the sentence about puzzles: "Although some puzzles are simple, others—such as finding several items in different areas of the game to unlock a door—are more complex.[5]" Perhaps you could specify how many puzzles are simple, and refine the second part into something like "more complex puzzles involving retrieving items from multiple areas."
      • Without playing the game again, I don't have a count of how many puzzles are simple, and I don't believe any sources do either (the ones I've come across do not). The complex puzzle part is trimmed back as per suggestion.
    • The most I can say about the combat system is that... it needs some condensing here and there. I'll leave the exact details up to you.
      • I don't see where it needs condensing. Unless some sentences can become more concise without loosing information (not sure how more concise it could be), condensing it any further is going to lose information and may make things unclear.
  • George Bell (voice actor) should not be linked if there isn't an article for him.
    • Don't see why it's a problem (as an article could be made), but okay.

That's what stood out right now. I'll probably be back for more. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Okay. --JDC808 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @JDC808:, I can't actually see anything else very wrong. I found some dead links and fixed them for you. In general, I Support this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you and thank you for the broken link fixes. --JDC808 15:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • I think I'm going to make this standard in my FA/GA reviews, as I've been doing it lately: I've done a brief copyedit before anything else. Feel free to revert or adjust as needed.
    • Looks fine, thanks.
  • "others are more complex and require the player to retrieve items from multiple areas" - that doesn't sound complex; the Lego games do that. Could you provide an example if you think it's complex?
    • It was explained a little more but another reviewer suggested to trimming it down to that. Will work on.
    • Might need a copy-edit, but I've expanded it. --JDC808 17:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You can choose which, if any, to remove or restructure around, but I see a noticeable overuse of parentheses; these should be rare in encyclopedic writing to avoid losing focus or including esoteric details.
    • Okay, I'll look through and see what I can do.
    • Parenthetical bits taken care of, I think. After going through it, a lot of the parenthesis were done by the last GOCE copy-editor. --JDC808 16:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I remember seeing articles about the sex minigame back when this game was released, but doesn't it only occur once, not even lasting very long? If so, why is that worthy of a mention in Gameplay?
    • It uses the same mechanics as the quick-time event feature mentioned before it, and it became a standard feature for the series up until the last game.

Done up through Gameplay. Tezero (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "on the fictional Mount Olympus" - I don't think it's appropriate to call religious beliefs "fictional" - or is this a fictional version of it?
    • It would be a fictional version, or rather an alternate version.
  • "and the Underworld and Tartarus" - why are these grouped together and not just ", the Underworld, and Tartarus"?
    • I had taken away the parenthesis around "such as the Forum and Hera's Gardens" and if I would have made it like how you're saying (which it was when the parenthesis were there), it would sound like the Underworld and Tartarus are also part of the Palace of the Gods.
  • "the remains of his wife" - per WP:EASTER, piped links are discouraged; could you rephrase this as something like "the remains of his wife, who was killed in ..."?
    • Okay.
  • "who was banished when Kratos retrieved Pandora's Box from Pandora's Temple, still chained to his back" - confusing; what was chained to whose back?
    • The temple. Not sure if clearer now.
  • The constant actor names are kind of distracting; have you considered creating a "cast" section? Normally these are frowned upon, but I think it'd be accepted if they're all notable actors and their acting is covered elsewhere in the body, which it is.
    • A good while ago (like 3 years if not more), we had a cast section, which like you said is frowned upon with video game articles (which I personally find silly). This was basically what we agreed upon (by we, I mean a couple of others who were editing the article back then). --JDC808 23:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "his death floods the world" - ???
    • Clarified, I think.
  • Might want to mention earlier that Hera controls all plant life a la Poison Ivy from Batman; it kinda comes out of nowhere that killing her ends all of it.
    • Done.
  • How unknown is Kratos' fate if he was "near death" when he offed himself? I'm genuinely asking - I haven't played any of the God of War games since I was mostly a Nintendo kid.
    • Right before the end of the credits, it's believed he died, but right after the credits, there's a trail of blood leading off to the edge of the cliff. He might have jumped off or he might have climbed down and is surviving somewhere. That's what's unknown.

Done up through Plot. Tezero (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

  • "In 2007, God of War creator and game director David Jaffe explained his original idea for the series, saying that it would be "hell on earth" as the gods and Titans battle each other for domination; "God of War explains, or ultimately will explain, why there are no more Greek myths"." - ambiguous; by "original" do you mean this was what he intended at first, or that the idea had never been tried before? This idea seems to be contrasted with what actually came into play in GoW3; was this his current idea in 2007, or only before then? I'd suggest reworking a lot of the first half of the first paragraph of Development for clarity.
    • It's what he originally intended. 2007 was when this particular interview happened. Done some reworking.
  • "individual tasks could take a year" - what kind of original tasks? A year would be quite a short time to develop an entire triple-A game, pay off one's mortgage, get a medical degree, or learn Mandarin fluently, while it would be exceedingly long to create a single character model or program the basic controls.
    • He didn't explicitly state what tasks. He only gave an example, which I have put in.
  • "which is the amount developer Naughty Dog used for the in-game model of Nathan Drake in Uncharted 2: Among Thieves" - relevance?
    • Comparison. At the time, God of War III and Uncharted 2 had some of the best (if not the best) graphics for consoles.
  • "Overall game length was estimated" - by whom? Normally I'm cool with the passive voice, but here the agent would be helpful since another total is given immediately after.
    • That was Asmussen.
  • "all footage from the trailer "is pulled straight from the game" and all footage is gameplay" - seems redundant; you could merely snip the quote
    • Done.
  • "Susan Blakeslee, who voiced two characters in God of War, voiced Gaia; previously voiced by narrator Linda Hunt, she only provided an introductory narration for God of War III" - ???
    • Better?
  • "Each composer provided a different aesthetic to the score" - examples would be nice
    • Added a couple of examples.
  • Some of the quotes in Reception appear unneeded and like they could easily be paraphrased, e.g. "so easy to switch between them on the fly", "couldn't be simpler", "its most outstanding visual achievement."
    • I sometimes have a hard time paraphrasing some things because I don't know how I would say it any differently. Tried to at least get the ones you mentioned here.
  • Not sure GiantBomb is a reliable source for release dates; doesn't it accept user-inputted data?
    • According to WP:VG/RS, it's "Reliable for reviews and news content submitted in the site's blog by the site's own editorial staff. Do not use the user contributed content from the site's article/database section for citations." I don't know if the contents of that particular citation is user submitted.
  • Is a reliable source?
    • I can't say for sure. It's there to show that they also a label for the soundtrack.
  • Per reference convention established on this article, Gamestyle should be used as work, not publisher; it looks like there might not be a true publisher.
    • Done.

That should be about it. Tezero (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, then. I don't think the GiantBomb issue is worthy of concern; if it's determined unreliable at some point, release dates for games from the early/mid-'00s or later are easy to find via press releases, ratings websites, etc. Tezero (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you. --JDC808 19:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Everything from my first pass through has been resolved; I'll do another read through and if I find anything else I'll post it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please fix my copyedits as needed. More points:

  • "In creating Kratos, art director Ken Feldman said "We [used] as many [polygons] as it [took]." The raw polygon count is considerably lower than 35,000, which is the amount developer Naughty Dog used for the in-game model of Nathan Drake in Uncharted 2: Among Thieves. Kratos' PlayStation 2 (PS2) character model was about 5,000 polygons; his PS3 model is about 20,000." Looking at some of the sources, it appears Nathan Drake is mentioned because he has quite a few more polygons than Kratos, but there seem to be other models with more polygons out there. I know Feldman mentions Drake, but it's a distraction here. How about rewording these sentences like so: "The character model for Kratos in the Playstation 2 (PS2) games used about 5,000 polygons; the PS3 model was about 20,000 – a high number, but less than the number used by models in other games. Ken Feldman, the art director, commented that the polygon count was not the only factor, and cited the increased texture detail as one of the reasons for Kratos's realistic appearance", using the same source you're using.
    • Okay, implemented your suggestion. A big reason Drake was referenced in that article was because Uncharted 2 and this game at that time had the best graphics for video game consoles. Games since then (especially with the new generation) have higher counts, but at that time (and I may be wrong) I think Drake was the only character model with a higher count (at least for video game consoles, not sure about PC). --JDC808 03:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      That explains why Feldman mentioned it, but without a source to give those details it's not really possible to explain that to a reader, and even with a source I think it's a bit of a distraction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The best-selling game on any console, its opening-month sales were 32 percent higher than those of God of War II": what does "best-selling" refer to here -- best-selling ever in total sales Best opening-month sales? And has the record been exceeded since then, or does it still stand?
    • It was the best-selling game of March 2010. --JDC808 03:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "A week before God of War III's release, the developers released "Path to Olympus" on the God of War website, with Kratos' backstory": is "Path to Olympus" a game? Or a film sequence?
    • It's been awhile, but I think it was basically like a comic, and I think there might have been a couple of videos. It's not on their website anymore, unfortunately. The only thing there now is a timeline of events throughout the series. --JDC808 03:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      OK. I'm going to support without addressing this, but you might make this 'the developers released Kratos' backstory on the God of War website, under the title "Path of Olympus"', which I think makes it a little clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Implemented your suggestion. --JDC808 15:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "He said the melodic and harmonic development has grown since the first game": I think you should cut this -- it's somewhat self-praise, and since it's not a third party comment I don't think it adds much.
    • Okay. --JDC808 03:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I want to go through the reception section one more time; I think it's a little choppy in places. Other than that, this is now in pretty good shape and I expect to be able to support once these points are cleared up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. I haven't reviewed the sources in detail, nor have I checked for close paraphrasing, but the sources I looked at in passing as part of the review look fine to me. There's a good deal of detail here, but it's handled neutrally and I think it stays on the right side of trivia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much. It's good to get a non-gamer perspective. Just to note, FAC #2 and #3 had source reviews, though some new sources have been added since then. --JDC808 15:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (GermanJoe)[edit]

  • Fair-use rationales in general are OK for both images, but File:GoW3_Kratos_vs_Hercules_QTE.jpg fails WP:NFC with over twice the recommended size. If higher resolutions are needed in exceptional cases, "editors should ensure that the image rationale fully explains the need for such a level of detail". See the guideline at WP:IMAGERES for more information. GermanJoe (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Last time these images were checked during an FAC, there were only minor issues that were easily resolved. Now one's being opposed? Regardless, that one's size has been reduced. --JDC808 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Don't know why, but maybe the reviewer overlooked the image size issue, sometimes reviews in good faith simply miss a problem. Please check the complete linked guidelines regarding non-free image quality (not only quantity). Sorry for bringing this point up quite late in the review, but I just noticed it today.
      • Thanks for resizing the image - all OK now (changed in header above). On a sidenote: the image size in pixels was too high, but you could still use a slightly larger image if you want (the quality limit is based on pixel count up to circa 100,000 pixels for the whole image. The current version has 57,600 pixels). WP:IMAGERES has details, how to calculate that. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

2012 Budweiser Shootout[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2012 Budweiser Shootout, one of two expedition races of the 2012 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, won by Kyle Busch. I believe that this article has met all the FA criteria and any feedback on this subject is most welcome. Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Z105space, am I right in assuming this is your first FAC? If so, welcome on behalf of the coordinators! Just a procedural note, your article's Peer Review should be closed now that you've nominated here, per guidelines. Pls take care of that ASAP, and feel free to ask for assistance if any difficulty. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - After giving this article a peer review, I believe it is up to the standards of my current FA and (hopefully) future FA. Of course, there are no post-race standings as this is an exhibition race, but the article is complete in all other regards. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Well I promoted this to good article class and since the peer review fixed the remaining issues in this article, I have no reason to oppose. good888 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

2006 UAW-Ford 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

After a successful run with the 2010 Sylvania 300, I present the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, known today as the GEICO 500 for sponsorship reasons. I have done everything I can to bring this article up to the standards of my first FA, and have brought it through all three stages of creation (New article, DYK and GA). I am nominating this because this is the final stage and I believe it meets the criteria. As the article is still relatively new, I expect there to be some kinks that will need to be worked out, but nonetheless, I believe the article is certainly in about as good enough shape as one can expect. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Z105space[edit]

Great article. Only one problem I came across.

  • All mentions of the Chase for the Sprint Cup should be renamed to the Chase for the Nextel Cup as this was a 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series race. Once this has been addressed, I'm happy to support this FA nomination. Z105space (Talk to me!) 18:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Support - Since the concern has been met, I see no reason to oppose. Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Support - Checked again for issues, but I could not find any. Therefore, no reason to oppose. good888 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

American Arts Commemorative Series medallions[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a rather obscure and unloved series of American bullion medallions produced as a competitor to the very popular South African Krugerrand coins. Though their sale numbers were lackluster, they served as the direct ancestor of the American Gold Eagle, a series of bullion coins which are today extremely popular with both collectors and investors. I worked on this article a few years ago, but personal issues arose and I became unable to be an active participant here for a while. However, I think the article meets the criteria, so I hope that this will be a welcome return to FAC. It is currently a good article. I want to thank everyone in advance for your efforts in reviewing and commenting on this article. Of course, any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.-RHM22 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I don't know anything about coins. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to laugh and any of my suggestions.
  • The sales were intended to "[reduce] the U.S. trade deficit, either by increasing the exports of gold or reducing the imports of this commodity", and to "further the U.S. desire to continue progress toward the elimination of the international monetary role of gold.": quotations require in-text attribution
    • You added in-line cites, but this also needs in-text attribution---who is being quoted here? "The source" isn't a good enough answer, as it could be a quote quote in the source. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Oops, sorry about that; I misunderstood your initial point, but now I see what you meant. I've corrected that to state that the quotes from a Treasury source,-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • a large number of suggestions of worthy individuals for the dollar coin that had previously been proposed,[1] which later became the Susan B. Anthony dollar.: a large bumber of worthies later became the Susan B. Anthony dollar?
    • I reworded this by including the information about the Susan B. Anthony dollar in parentheses, but if you're not happy with that, then I wouldn't have a problem with removing it entirely; it's not really necessary to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • It is a bit confusing the way it's introduced. Maybe you could put it in an endnote? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I included a note, but I'm not sure if I've done it correctly, because I never used notes in any of my other articles.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The subjects designated were Grant Wood, Marian Anderson, Mark Twain, Willa Cather, Louis Armstrong, Frank Lloyd Wright, Robert Frost, Alexander Calder, Helen Hayes and John Steinbeck.: it might be best to state what their artistic fields are here, rather than scattering them throughout the text later
  • those honoring painter Grant Wood on the one ounce issue and contralto singer Marian Anderson on the half ounce issue: it might be best to describe the different issues for those of us who know nothing about these things. Are one-once and half-ounce issues to be taken for granted?
    • I changed this to make it clear that I was referring to the one ounce and one-half ounce medallions, but I can add more if necessary.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I meant something more along the lines of "the medallions were issued in half-ounce and one-ounce yada yada". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I split that up into two sentences: "Struck at the West Point Bullion Depository, the medallions were issued in one ounce and half-ounce sizes. The first struck were those honoring Grant Wood on the one ounce medallion and Marian Anderson on the half-ounce piece."-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • the Mint announced that a private firm would market the medallions; commodities trading firm J. Aron and Company was selected: did the announcement state J. Aron and Company was selected, or were they selected after the announcement?
  • toothlike denticles: toothlike whut?
    • Haha, that is pretty obscure. It refers to the small designs seen around the rim of some coins, although it's uncommon on modern coins. It's pretty hard to work around that, since it's a word known only to numismatists, so I removed it and replaced it with a description of the term: "Beginning in 1982, this information and small, toothlike designs were added along the inner rim of the medallions, and reeding was added to the edge." Does that sound okay? ('Denticles' comes from the Latin word for 'tooth,' I think, so it's probably a little repetitive to say "toothlike denticles" anyway.)-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Or you could go with "like designs called denticles" to please both layreaders and numasmatists (is that a word?). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I've added 'denticles' in there as well. I should add that to the numismatic terminology article, if it isn't already there.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In an interview with New York Magazine in October 1980, Luis Vigdor, assistant vice-president for bullion and numismatic operations of Manfa, Tordella & Brookes, then one of the largest coin firms in the country, compared the medallions and the efforts to market them unfavorably to the South African Krugerrand.: this is quite the mouthful. Could it be cut up or down?
    • I removed the part of the sentence which mentions that the quote is from an interview with New York Magazine, since it isn't really relevant or necessary to that sentence, and of course it's also cited as such. Other than that, I can't really find any way to reduce the size of the sentence. I think it looks better now, but I'd like to hear your thoughts as well.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Curly Turkey, for your thorough copyedit and suggestions! I've addressed all of your concerns, but I'm also adding a few notes to your above suggestions to explain and make sure they're all good with you.-RHM22 (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I've addressed all your further concerns, I think. Please let me know if I missed anything or made mistakes (especially regarding the endnote, with which I'm not very familiar). Thanks again for your time and effort.-RHM22 (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'm ready to support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ U.S. Senate, p. 93.

Support I probably have some articles on these medallions someplace from my last trip to the ANA library, I mean contemporary ones from Coins and CoinAge but I'll have to look for them, they are on my old laptop, which no longer travels. However, the article is just fine without them. I'll email them to you, but it will be at least a week as I am traveling. Could you shoot me an email via "Email this user"? I think you still have my old email and I can't find yours.

  • "The intent of the act" This sentence should be split at the semicolon.
  • Putting an image to the left of a block quote loses the indented effect and probably should be avoided.
  • I set the two images in the 'multiple image' template, which I hope is a bit neater.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "remain stagnant" maybe "remain unchanged"
  • "Helms gave" ... "Helms goes on" probably the tenses should be consistent.
  • "the Bank omnibus bill" probably either both Bank and omnibus should be capped, or neither.
  • I did some research, and from what I can tell, the official title of the bill wasn't 'Bank Omnibus Bill,' so I changed it all to lowercase.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Manfa" is this correct? I thought it was a longer name.
  • That was a great catch! The correct name is "Manfra." I think that typo was in there since I wrote the article, so it's good that you caught it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
That's it. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Wehwalt, for your thoughtful review and support! I believe I've addressed all of your concerns, but I left a few notes above to discuss if not.-RHM22 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:JesseHelms.jpg is tagged as missing author info, and is also missing a date. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that, Nikkimaria. I believe I've updated it correctly, crediting the original image to the U.S. Senate and the upload to Japan01 here on the English-language Wikipedia.-RHM22 (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Just a few minor comments.

  • Suggest saying in the opening sentence that there were ten medallions in the series.
  • "Critical of the Treasury's plan, North Carolina senator Jesse Helms stated that": how about "North Carolina senator Jesse Helms criticized the plan, saying that"?
  • "Helms gave the following statement": I think you could make this just "Helms said".
  • "He noted that the House Subcommittee on Historic Preservation was sent a large number of suggestions": should this be "had been sent"? Or if the point is that the suggestions both had come in in the past and continued to come in, how about something like "regularly received suggestions" to emphasize that?
    • The source isn't really clear on that, but I believe that the suggestions were still coming in at that time. However, just in case, I changed it to "received," which should cover either scenario.-RHM22 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Vigdor stated that they were difficult to market": perhaps "According to Vigdor"? And maybe switch "stating" to "asserting" in the following sentence -- he is making an assertion and something more definite than "stating" seems appropriate.
  • The comment about selling them in sets of five of the half-ounce or five of the one-ounce made me realize that it's not obvious which five are in each set. Four of them don't have weights in the mentioned in the inscriptions listed in the table, and two are not described in the text; the Twain medallion's weight can only be deduced by noticing the caption of the Cather medallion picture. How about adding a weight column to the table? And maybe a designer column?
    • Adding that information to the table is a great idea, and I have done it. Does that clear it up sufficiently?-RHM22 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would assume all the coins are not under copyright. How about a gallery of some (or even all) of the designs?
    • They are indeed in the public domain as works of the U.S. federal government, but coins and medals are considered three-dimensional objects, so any photograph automatically generates a new copyright. In the past, it has been very difficult to find freely-licensed images for coin articles, but another member has recently received permission to use a large repository of images for the encyclopedia. I will contact him to see if he can secure some images of these pieces.-RHM22 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Mike Christie: Thank you for your thoughtful comments! I believe I have addressed all of them (some with minor changes), however I have also left some notes above, between your suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. My comments above have been addressed; this looks good to me. A pity about the coin image copyrights; now you mention it I remember running into that before. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for your comments and support. I contacted that fellow editor, whom I mentioned above, in regards to some more images for this article. I think that I will be able to get them, but I'm still waiting to hear back from him. It used to be extremely difficult to find any decent coin images, to the point that we (myself and the other numismatic contributors) would sometimes have to resort to using low quality monochrome images from pre-1923 Google Books.-RHM22 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Mike Christie: I have an update regarding your proposed image gallery. Thanks to the very generous and invaluable efforts of Godot13, I have added an image gallery depicting all ten medallions to the article.-RHM22 (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
That looks great! Glad to see it was possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord note -- Hi RHM, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability, and since it's been a couple of years since you were last here (I believe) I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- will request both at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Certainly! Thank you. My last time at FAC was in mid-2012, I believe.-RHM22 (talk) 15:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review and spotchecks

  • FN19: page formatting
  • How are you ordering Other sources?
    • I don't know about this. It was done by another editor a while ago, and I don't really know why or how those are separated. I've merged them all alphabetically.-RHM22 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Umm...sorry, but how are you ordering them? Alphabetical by what? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Nikkimaria: Well, the best I could do was to order them alphabetically by author or editor. The different templates shuffle all the information around. Maybe I can fix it so the author(s) will appear first, before the other information in the cite templates.-RHM22 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • This is now fixed. I added the editors to the Coin World books, and I changed the 'publisher' parameter to 'author' on the press releases. That's more accurate anyway, since they may not have been published by the Treasury, but they were definitely the author.-RHM22 (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
          • Okay, in that case we should just rearrange the DoT refs - since they all have the same publisher they can be ordered either by date or by title alphabetically (likely the latter, as that's what seems to be happening for the AP refs). Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Oh, sorry about that; I absentmindedly forgot to order them alphabetically based on title. That's fixed now. Sorry for taking so long to get this simple thing sorted!-RHM22 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mint Director" - should use single quote marks within the title
    • I took a look at that, and I noticed that the link was wrong for some reason. I've corrected it now. The quote marks are in the title of the press release, so I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to remove them.-RHM22 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
      • This would seem to be covered by the Typographic conformity section of MOS:QUOTE. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Thank you! I didn't know about that. I'll fix it now.-RHM22 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The "According to the Treasury" quote from FN1 is slightly different from the source - not substantially, but please correct
  • FN12 is returning an error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Do you mean the link in the bibliography section? If you're based in Canada, I think that might block some of their content to non-U.S. people because of copyright concerns. I could send you some screen captures of the necessary pages if you'd like.-RHM22 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Interestingly enough, I'm now on a different computer (still in Canada) and it works fine, and looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • That is strange. It must have been a website bug.-RHM22 (talk) 04:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Nikkimaria: Many thanks for your SR and spotchecks! I believe I've addressed all of these except for the last one. I've added some notes below yours above.-RHM22 (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]

Support, essentially. I have a few nitpicky observations that surely won't interfere with promotion:

  • J. Aron & Co. currently redirects to Goldman Sachs, where it's mentioned in the 1980–1999 History subsection. Is it worth linking there (perhaps making an appropriately-formatted redirect to that section)?
  • That's a good idea, and I've done that.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "1984 marked the termination of the Mint's contract with J. Aron and Company..." The manual of style discourages starting sentences with figures, including years. Perhaps instead "The Mint's contract with J. Aron and Company terminated in 1984..."
  • Thank you! That's a great catch. I've fixed it, and I think the wording is better now anyway.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the reverse of the Frost medallion conventionally described as "inscription" rather than, perhaps, "poem"? I recognize that it is both of those things, but the latter makes the connection to his work more clear, perhaps.
  • I changed it to show that the poem fragment quoted on the reverse is a portion of "The Road Not Taken".-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Egan source is missing some information about the journal issue: this was volume 13, number 41 of New York.
  • Another great catch! Thanks.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Its not really essential, since the citations cite specific page numbers, but I don't suppose you have the page ranges for the Ganz and Gilkes articles (or the volume/number for those issues of COINage and Coin World)?
  • I've added those as well.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The Yeoman source is missing an ISBN number (I believe it to be 978-0-7948-2494-5).
  • That is correct. I've also used this same copy of the Red Book for a few of my coin articles.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and made this a fully-hyphenated ISBN because I care about that way more than is probably healthy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In general, very nice work on a surprisingly obscure bit of modern American exonumia. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage: Thank you for your support and comments! I believe that I have addressed all of them.-RHM22 (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. I look forward to seeing this article with its bronze star. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): HalfGig, Sminthopsis84, Chiswick Chap

This article, Cucurbita, is about the genus of plants called squash, pumpkin, and/or gourd depending on local parlance. They are native to the Western Hemisphere. The fruits of this genus are an important source of human food and play several roles in human culture. We've enjoyed working on this for over a year and hope you enjoy reading it. There are many people without whom we could not have gotten this article this far; too many of them to list here. HalfGig talk 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

the tools are reporting it has "Squash (plant)" which is a redirect, but it doesn't. I don't know how to fix this. HalfGig talk 00:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Chiswick Chap looked at this. See this talk page thread. HalfGig talk 13:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata[edit]

Good to finally see this article at FAC! I'll post a full review later, but for now a few comments:

  • I noticed that Linnaeus is briefly mentioned at the start of the "Species" section. May I suggest this sentence be expanded to a short paragraph describing his original circumscription, as well as a brief mention of the synonyms listed in the taxobox (which aren't mentioned elsewhere). Also, you could give a direct link to Linnaeus protolog (link here; page # is 1010, not 2010)
    • We'll work that. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Nice correction to the page number! I've added Genera Plantarum because Species Plantarum needs that for completeness. I wondered about mentioning earlier people, like Tournefort, whom Linnaeus is basically copying from. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Good addition, that's pretty much what I envisioned. Sasata (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • ref #36 (Kemery 2014) indicates a PDF, but there's no link
    • That's because if you search the title it'll find it but when you click it it instantly gives you a download. I downloaded it and read it but I can't get it to display in a browser. How does one rectify this for the reference? I don't know how. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
      • This is now ref 38. I added two more refs for this. But can 38 be fixed? Can we keep it or not? HalfGig talk 00:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
        • This is now ref 39, but I can't find it now so I've replaced it with another university ref. HalfGig talk 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • missing a conversion for "20–35 cm wide"
  • is dietary fiber considered a nutrient (lead)?
    • Cut, it's mentioned in the article, so not needed in lead. HalfGig talk 01:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • missing citations:
  • "Female flowers of C. pepo have a small calyx, but the calyx of C. moschata male flowers is comparatively short."
  • "Cucurbita are good sources of vitamin A, vitamin C, potassium, dietary fiber, niacin, folic acid, and iron. They are free of cholesterol."
  • entire paragraph ending with "has significantly different enzymes and chromosomes."
This was all the result of copyediting. They all had refs at one point. I dug them up by going through the history of the article. HalfGig talk 23:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from CorinneSD[edit]

Further comments by CorinneSD[edit]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

An impressive looking article overall. A few points occurred to me:

  • You need to be consistent as to whether you use the full species name or the abbreviated form, Cucurbita pepo or C. pepo.
I thought if you spelled it out the first time you could use the short form thereafter. Am I mistaken? HalfGig talk 14:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I am unsure about this, but having mentioned the five domesticated species in the lead, I would have thought all subsequent mentions in the rest of the article should be of the shortened form, C. pepo for example. This is not currently the case. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil." - The subject of this sentence is "The Cucurbita genus" and I doubt you could extract much oil or anything else from a genus!
Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety, and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds." - Perhaps this sentence could be moved nearer the beginning of the paragraph.
Rearranged slightly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Pumpkins and other Cucurbita fruits are celebrated during Halloween and at events such as pumpkin chucking contests, the Keene Pumpkin Fest, and flower and vegetable shows in many countries." - These events are a bit minor for mention in the lead of an article ostensibly about a genus.
Made the sentence more general; celebration of the genus is however demonstrably widespread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "There is no universal agreement as to how to handle the taxonomy of the genus, as is seen in the number of species listed, which varies from 13 to 30."= This sentence is rather long and rambling.
tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Seed germination in some species of Cucurbita has been shown to be directly linked to embryo axis weight and reserve protein." - this sentence requires some explanation or wikilinking.
tweaked. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "pollen load" - ditto.
tweaked and rearranged a little. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the "History and domestication" section, the first sentence of paragraph 2 has some duplication with the first sentence of paragraph 3.
Removed the sentence from para 3. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I would put the "History and domestication" section near the beginning of the article.
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk)
  • Why are the "Reproductive biology" and "Germination and seedling growth" sections part of the "Description" section?
Should they be their own sections or should we make a new section with them as subsections? HalfGig talk 14:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought separate sections. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for looking I can get to this later today. HalfGig talk 10:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "... the original wild specimen was a small round fruit and that the modern pumpkin is its direct descendant." - Maybe "had" rather than "was".
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Its leaves are 20 to 30 centimeters (7.9 to 11.8 in) wide." -The conversion is a bit over precise.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Leaves have 3–5 lobes and are 20–35 centimeters (7.9–13.8 in) wide." - Ditto.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 19:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "All the subspecies, varieties, and cultivars are conspecific and interfertile." - Isn't this a tautology?
Fixed HalfGig talk 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Pumpkins and pumpkin seeds have high levels of crude protein ..." - This might be true of pumpkin seed but I would doubt it is of pumpkin which is 95% water and contains 1.2% protein according to your infobox.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Because of this bitterness that is especially prevalent in wild Cucurbita, in parts of Mexico the flesh of the fruits is rubbed on a woman's breast to wean children." - This sentence is a bit convoluted.
Fixed HalfGig talk 03:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "... there are occasional reports of cucurbitacin getting into the human food supply and causing illness." - "getting into the human food supply" makes it sound like a contaminant rather than a naturally produced secondary metabolite.
Tweaked. HalfGig talk 22:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cucurbits, which are all members of the family Cucurbitaceae, ..." - This information seems redundant.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "For example, cucurbita are often represented in Moche ceramics" - If you use "cucurbita" here it needs to be capitalised and italicised. Otherwise substitute "cucurbits".
Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
That's it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • That looks good. Now supporting this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • (A bit biased) Support (because I worked on it a bit myself) -- comprehensive, well-written, careful... what I expect from a FA. Zad68 03:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (GermanJoe)[edit]

  • File:Zapallomuseolarco.jpg - this one gave me trouble (low-resolution image), but I found this archived discussion, confirming communication with the museum. This collection of images from museum exhibits is most likely OK, based on information from the museum, that was relayed via OTRS.
  • File:Cucurbita_pepo_Cocozelle_fruits.jpg - originally from a different website, but the Flickr-uploader seems to maintain the source website as well (AGF) - OK.
  • All other images are clearly CC or PD for various reasons with sufficient source and author information.

Both comments are just for information, all images are OK to use within our guidelines. GermanJoe (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your detailed look. HalfGig talk 22:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Will take a look and jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, I have to say I am not a fan of the intro as it stands currently as it comes over a bit stilted. The first sentence leaves me thinking, "a genus of what?" - I'd also wikilink genus here. I think I'd open with, "Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus of herbaceous vine in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to the Andes and Mesoamerica. Five species are widely grown for their edible fruit, variously known as pumpkin, squash or gourd, and seeds. Plants in the Cucurbita genus are important sources of human food, beverages, medicine, and oil. Other kinds of gourd, also called bottle-gourds, are native to Africa and belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe. These gourds are used as utensils or vessels." or something like this - it just needs to flow better and be more punchy. I am happy to massage it live,
Feel free. It has probably had rather too much of the committee treatment! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, this is my attempt at rejigging the lead and making it snappier. Let me know what you think.
Looks good. Linked genus. Yes, by all means edit directly as you see fit or post here for us to do it. As for the intro, I've made some changes as you suggest above. Feel free to tweak it or post more suggestions here. HalfGig talk 13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe its because I do alot of biology articles but I'd move the History and domestication section down the article to after Habitat and distribution - that way it segues nicely into the cultivated stuff, with nutrients etc. coming after.
Done. HalfGig talk 13:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd put production after History and domestication actually.
Done. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Why are we comparing production to watermelon production?
So that we can see where cucurbit production stands relative to another common fruit food. If this is a faux paus, it can be removed. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, not sure - I can see the benefits in giving context, so if you guys feel it's useful I can live with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC) so vast that its various subspecies and cultivars have been misidentified as totally separate species. - needs a ref at the end of the sentence
This had a ref. It was lost in editing, so I found it by going through article history and readded it. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Germination and seedling growth is a subsection of reproductive biology so should be level 3 header.
Fixed. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd expect the distribution and habitat section to have something on the total range, maybe northern and southernmost species and centres of biodiversity of the genus (if possible), not just the few cultivated species
Some of this type of information is in history and domestication section, but I also see your point. I've added it. Please review. This info is spelled out in the Nee (1990) article. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
why the link to Calabaza at the bottom? If it is one to talk about, then a few notes within the general text is better - the article has only 28 kb of prose so can easily be expanded.
Cut HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, am not sure about the Culinary uses section - most of this should be under production above, not human culture, the only exception being the thanksgiving bit which should be moved to festivals.
Split per above, please review because I'm not sure I split it precisely as you intended. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Um, I think this split overlooks actual culinary uses, i.e. different foods and recipes, regional or not, made from squashes. These items of daily consumption do not fit into production, nor into (annual) festivals. I suggest we put them back into a smaller Culinary uses section. I'll see if I can find some regional variations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I have to agree with Chiswick here. It's better with a culinary section. However, the paragraph currently at the bottom of production, that was moved out of culinary, which starts "The Cucurbitaceae family has many species used as ....";....I'm split on whether it should stay where it is now or move back to culinary uses. HalfGig talk 18:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay - I guess I saw human culture as "culture plus symbolism but not including food as such" but if other folks see it as more inclusive that's no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
why is Cucumber in see also bit at bottom?
Cut HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Do we know anything about regional variation that can be added to the Culinary uses section? what preparation is done more than others where....
As I understood your above comment, there is no culinary uses section now. As I understand your question about preparation, I haven't seen anything in what would be suitable source for a featured level article. I shall look around and post back here if I find anything suitable. HalfGig talk 15:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I have added some traditional regional variations from India, France and Italy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I think we're in striking distance but still a few issues to clarify. The prose is pretty good, and the comprehensiveness is okay - a few issues there that need to be looked at - but the structure needs some fine-tuning as above. It's a big article and I have to take another look as I am wondering whether there is some more that should be in it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It was only 6K when I started on it back in Aug 2013. HalfGig talk 14:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Meh, that's common. Most articles I pick up to buff for FAC grow considerably....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • tentative support - am happy with structure now. Prose is fine. I can't see any glaring gaps in content, hence I can't see any outstanding issues that would bar this article from becoming FA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

This nom has been open a very long time but my impression is that we might benefit more by seeing this one through than archiving and starting again; that'll depend on how things pan out in the next short while...

  • @CorinneSD: do you consider all your comments to have been resolved now?
Yes, I do. Thanks for asking. CorinneSD (talk) 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks like we still need a source review for formatting/reliability and a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If none of our reviewers above feel comfortable undertaking either of those I'll try Nikkimaria.
  • There are quite a few duplicate links in the article. Some might be justified by the space between them but pls review in any case -- vine twice in the lead is certainly unnecessary! You can install this script to highlight the duplicates.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't know about the dupe link tool. I've fixed them now, except for one that shows up because it is linked in a photo caption and the body. I was told this is okay. Thank you for the tip. HalfGig talk 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Ref 10 has an error message missing url.
    • Updated reference. HalfGig talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cucurbita (Latin for gourd)[3] is a genus of herbaceous vine" I would link herbaceous.
  • "In 1990, Michael Nee classified them into the following 13 species" There is no explanation of why Nee's scheme is given rather than that of another expert.
    • Nee's system is one of the more recent ones if not the most recent, so it based upon more modern scientific knowledge, he is also a recognized top expert in the Cucurbita field, with his 1990 work being oft-cited. I've added a bit and ref about this. HalfGig talk 19:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "this pollination requires proper technique." proper does not seem the right word - expert?
    • Changed to "skilled", ok?. HalfGig talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The most critical factors in flowering and fruit set are physiological rather than climatic." I do not understand this. It is stated above that most species require almost continuous water and others tolerate dry conditions. These are climatic factors.
    • Good point. In fact, the cited paper says very little about climatic factors, although they are mentioned in the abstract. I've removed that and clarified what the physiological factors are. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Evidence of Cucurbita being domesticated has been found in early archaeological records of native peoples" This seems to say that early native peoples kept archaeological records.
    • I've linked that to Archaeological record, which refers to a body of evidence..." It is what archaeologists have learned from the artifacts they have documented. ". Is this okay or do you have an alternate wording? HalfGig talk 19:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I think it is better not to refer to the "archaeological record" as it is a controversial theoretical concept. Perhaps something like "Archaeological investigations have found evidence of domestication of Cucurbita going back over 8,000 years."
  • "Evolutionarily speaking, the genus is relatively recent in origin" This is vague. 100,000s of years? Millions? If it was in Mexico and more than 3 million years old it presumably originates in the north American continent before it joined up with south America.
Only thousands for the genus, compared to millions for the family.[1] I've added to this effect in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Kubitzki, Klaus (10 December 2010). Flowering Plants. Eudicots: Sapindales, Cucurbitales, Myrtaceae. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 120–122. ISBN 978-3-642-14397-7. The fossil record of Cucurbitaceae and indeed of the order Cucurbitales is sparse.. The oldest fossils are seeds from the Uppermost Paleocene and Lower Eocene London Clay (65MA).. Bryonia-like seeds from fossil beda at Tambov, Western Siberia date to the Lower Sarmat, 15-13 MA ago. Subfossil records of Cucurbita pepo have been dated to 8,000-7,000 B.C. at Guila Naquitz..., those of C. moschata in the northern Peruvian Andes to up to 9,200 B.P. 
  • Reply above and further points.
  • The comment about Lagenaria siceraria is a bit obscure. I assume it is no longer regarded as a Cucurbita species, but this is not clear.
    • reworked this sentence. That and Citrullus lanatus are not Cucurbita but are in the same family as Cucurbita, Cucurbitaceae. HalfGig talk 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Later, more accurate, dating using accelerator mass spectrometers provided more specific dates." What dates? Is 10,000 now ruled out?
It seems so, see the Kubitzki ref and quote. I've changed the 8-10,000 to 'at least 8,000' which fits these sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
        • I'm not so sure the 10000yr mark is gone. So I agree Chiswick's wording is better. I also removed the mass spectrometer sentence. It's not necessary. I thought of rewording it but decided not to. HalfGig talk 12:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although the stems and skins tend to be bitterer than the flesh" Is bitterer a word? I would prefer more bitter.
    • Changed. FYI, according to two online dictionaries 'bitterer' is a word. HalfGig talk 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The only countries that rank in the top 20 where squashes are native are Cuba, which ranks 14th with 347,082 metric tons, and Argentina, which ranks 17th, with 326,900 metric tons. But it is also native to Mexico which is 7th.
    • Good catch. I added the word "additional", which I'd meant to do way back whenever. HalfGig talk 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cucurbits are susceptible to diseases such as bacterial wilt" Cucurbits is piped to Cucurbitaceae. It seems confusing to introduce a new piped synonym for the tribe so late in the article.
    • I added " also cucurbits," into the lede. HalfGig talk 12:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would link xerophytic.
    • That was linked. I must have undone it a few days ago when I was cleaning up duplicate links. HalfGig talk 12:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. BTW I think there is an error in the Kubitzki source quoted above. 65MA is the beginning of the Paleocene, long before the Paleocene/Eocene transition and London Clay. Maybe he means 56MA. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. And yes, I think that's what he was referring to. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Source check[edit]

I have spotchecked the sources, examining all those ending in "2". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

    1. 2 (Tropicos) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    2. 12 (Worldbotanical) - "Musaceae" is mentioned in the source as another example of use of the word "pepo".
    • I think it's best to leave as is, see Musaceae, not even same family. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 22 (Robinson) - This source hardly supports the statement and could be removed as #21 does do so.
    • Moved to a better spot, two in fact. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 32 (Sanjur) - This source supports the cladogram.
    2. 42 (Pimenta) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    3. 52 (Holotype) - This source supports the statement it cites but I think "Triloba" should be in italics and not capitalised. This also applies to "Zapallito" and "Zipinka" and the relevant citations need rationalising. I'm not sure about the other varieties as I do not have access to #55.
    • Fixed as I understand what you said. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 62 (Paris) - As far as I can see, this difficult to read, multi-used source fully supports the statements cited.
    • Yes, it's a key source, he's a cucurbit specialist. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 72 (Roberts) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    2. 82 (Cutler) - I do not have access to this source.
    3. 92 - (University of Illinois) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    4. 102 (Tallamy) - This source supports the two statements it cites.
    5. 112 (Havelda) - This source does not support the statement it cites as far as I can see. But there are four citations and other sources may support the statement.
    • It's in ref 113. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 122 (Janick) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    2. 132 (Bean) - I do not have access to this source.
    3. 142 (Jaffrey) - I do not have access to this source.
    4. 152 (Tra Meno) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    5. 162 (Festival) - This source supports the statement it cites.
    6. 172 (Kew) - This source supports the statement it cites.
  • In general, I found no instances of close paraphrasing or plagiarism in the sources I inspected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Of the ones that have issues, I will fix them in a few hours. The issues are likely the result of massive copyediting and structure realignments that have gone on with this article. HalfGig talk 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • NOTE: Some ref numbers changed when I worked this. HalfGig talk 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
        • NOTE 2: Cwmhiraeth had already supported the article up above in this FAC and her on her talk page at User_talk:Cwmhiraeth#Cucurbita she says that all concerns in here in her source\paraphrase check have been met. HalfGig talk 11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources (formatting / reliability) - OK[edit]

  • Some references need Template:subscription required, one needs Template:registration required tags. The "External links" tool in the FAC toolbox shows a list of results. Some of those templates can possibly be replaced with actual cite parameters, see the templates' documentation for more info.
      • OK, I ran this tool and added the tags to the ones it found. HalfGig talk 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed a few minor issues with order of references - OK.
  • References are consistently formatted, the article is well-referenced throughout.
  • All sources covering scientific information are academic publications and/or written by topic experts.
  • I can't really judge the scientific details. Several extensive reviews have already combed through the article (see above), all raised points have been addressed.
  • Some references in "Festivals" are a bit more lightweight, but still OK for a folklore section with mostly uncontroversial festival info.

Aside from the first minor cleanup point, no problems found with citations. GermanJoe (talk) 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

    • Thank you for this input. HalfGig talk 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • That was a quick fix, thank you. Status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • NOTE: GermanJoe has crossed out the image, source, and paraphrasing requests at WT:FAC. This makes two people who have source and paraphrase checks. Thank you! HalfGig talk 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s) I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Curly Turkey, GermanJoe and others left very helpful feedback in the previous FAC discussion, which was closed as some matters required more thorough investigation. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I JethroBT has addressed all the issues I had in the last FAC and on the talk page, so I support this nom (though, as the nominator knows, if I had my 'druthers I'd have most of the kanji kicked out of the body). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I've just kicked out some more what with the glossary there and all. I, JethroBT drop me a line 04:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg: since Japan does not have freedom of panorama for artistic works, you should explicitly indicate that the work itself is now PD. The tag you've currently got indicates that the artwork is fair-use, which I don't think is what you mean - rather it's the photo that is non-free. This is further confused by "The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain" - if that is true, why is this fair use at all?\
    Done, with some issues. The author of the image has released the photographic work under a free license, or it is in the public domain Is that text automatically generated? I don't remember writing that myself. The photograph is definitely not under a free license, as you said, and is owned by the Tokyo National Museum. I'll be removing this line. I have indicated that the work itself is PD in both Japan and the U.S., but with the non-free tag, it's produced incompatibilities that I've been unable to resolve. Does it just need to be left this way? I, JethroBT drop me a line 13:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    This is one possible solution, or you could explore alternative tags. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Uzume.jpg: if this photo was taken in Japan, again the licensing status of the artwork itself should be indicated
    Checking... Information on the artwork itself is not immediately available and requires a little digging... I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    I've been unable to find any information on the statue itself in terms of its creator or the year it was built, so I think it's best to remove the photo for now. I've been unable to find a suitable, free replacement image that has the necessary information. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, while this was not the focus of my review, I suggest you examine the consistency of reference formatting before a source review is done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Can you be more specific about the consistency of the referencing format? Should things like websites and news articles also use the sfn format, even if they are just cited once rather than multiple times across multiple pages? I don't have a good idea of what's expected here; my thinking was that books would be more suitable for sfn, but using sfn for web content and news would not serve any useful purpose beyond the normal ref tags. I, JethroBT drop me a line 12:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is that similar sources should look similar. Under that rule, using sfn for books and another option for websites/news articles is fine. Problems occur when books and websites are not consistent with other books and websites. For example, some books include locations and others do not, or sometimes you include publisher for newspapers and other times not. There are also things that, while consistent, are errors: for example, Tokyo National Museum is a publisher not a work, and so should not be italicized.
I see, that makes sense. I'll tidy these up today. I, JethroBT drop me a line 15:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: As I'm going through these, one thing I will note is that Template:Cite news recommends the following for the publisher line: Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher) This is the case for many news publications here, such as the Japan Times or NYT, so it makes sense that there is some inconsistency in this regard. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Done. I've standardized a number of matters such as publisher info on books, full page numbers for journal articles, and designating magazines vs. journals in addition to removing the via=JSTOR parameter in citations given that I provided the identification number using jstor=. I've added these in for sources that I obtained using JSTOR through the Wikipedia Library. I, JethroBT drop me a line 22:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: In light of changes over the past month, could you undertake a source review? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - only a few minor points remaining:

  • "[Den] was also known for developing a communal living and training facility for Ondekoza on Sado Island in Japan, and had a reputation for its intensity and broad education programs in folklore and music." - Is "Den" the first or last name? Use last name (or the Japanese equivalent) throughout.
    Done. "Den Tagayasu" is actually a name the performer created for himself, and it appears that Den is the last name after some checking. Reliable sources like Taiko Boom refer to him as "Den," ([16]) so I'll adjust references to him as "Den" accordingly. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "He is the recipient of awards recognizing the cultural value of his work." - The sentence is a bit short, "awards" could use some qualifier (worldwide? which kind of awards? ...). Just a brief addition needed to fill the sentence.
    Done. It seemed easier just to provide what the awards were, specifically, so I did. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounding nitpicky, but fair-use rationale of File:ThreeHaniwa.jpg needs the "n.a." parameters filled (on FA-level):
  • "Commercial opportunities": check other non-free art images for example phrases.
  • "not replaceable": you should indicate, why this specific image is not replaceable with another image for the same encyclopedic purpose.
Done. @GermanJoe: All of your above comments have been addressed. I, JethroBT drop me a line 21:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Other images have been reviewed already, no need for duplication.
  • I'll leave a full source review to the experts (cleaned up a bit). GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support (confident, that a final source review will show only minor issues, quickly fixed) The article covers a broad topic with a lot of necessary detail, but stays accessible throughout with a clear and logical structure. Unavoidable Japanese and music terminology is put into context and supported with additional Wiki-links. Sources appear to be reliable (on a quick glance), content is thoroughly referenced. Very nice article on a difficult topic. GermanJoe (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support. Some great work here. The article is well-organized and easy to read, which is hard to do for a topic readers will know little about; and the prose is in good shape. I can't speak to comprehensiveness but all the topics I would expect to see are covered -- construction, performance, types, cultural history, usage both inside and outside Japan. This is featured quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)