Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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




Nominator(s): Yunshui  07:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Japanese temple bells. I've been working on it on and off for a while now, and have finally decided to see whether it can be pushed to FA status. I've not had anything much to do with FA before now, so would appreciate any and all assistance and suggestions. Yunshui  07:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Quick comment (I hope to review this at a later date): Jigoku is a dab link. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That was sort of intentional (since the only place we have an entry on Jigoku meaning "Hell" is at that dab page). However, since it's piped anyway, I don't see that it matters if I change the target to Diyu instead, which I've now done. Cheers, look forward to your review. Yunshui  14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll try and finish the cancer article first, then come here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Chandralekha (1948 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I intend to take this article about a 1948 mega-budget Indian film to featured status because of its historical significance in Indian cinema. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Interstate 69 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979  05:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

This the third of Michigan's four mainline Interstate Highways, and it's also the only state section of Interstate 69 that's complete in the US now that the highway is being extended to Mexico.The article has undergone expansing to fill it out before a GAN and an ACR in the last year. With any necessary minor adjustments, it should be good to go for the bronze star. Imzadi 1979  05:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I thoroughly reviewed the prose for grammar, spelling, flow and consistency at ACR. In addition, I requested several things to clarify the history, all of which were delivered. Most important to me is the map that is currently the third image in the history section, which provides a quick visual reference to the technical and detailed synopsis alongside. I requested this map with a pending support at ACR, and am pleased to see it in place. Despite being a WP:HWY member, I wish to emphasize an "external" support for how well this article informs me of the relevant geographical information without even requiring an external map. Very few geographical articles can achieve this so comprehensively, which is why I have taken the time to write this extended support. - Floydian τ ¢ 06:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and believe that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 04:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer[edit]

Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 23:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the fourth most prevalent cancer in women, very highly viewed and quite important. The article has been improved substantially in the past weeks by a peer review, GA review, and an expert review from Cancer Research UK. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Well, Kei, I guess I'll review this... but we all know I don't know anything about medicine (the ear bone's connected to the ... what now?)
  • Globally, as of 2012, endometrial cancers occurred in 320,000 women and caused 76,000 deaths. - "As of" would be present tense, as it is something that holds true or we expect to hold true. I'd use "in 2012" as the numbers can change dramatically from year to year.
  • What's with all the hidden refs? When at the end of a paragraph, one would expect a footnote (i.e. Abnormal menstrual periods or extremely long, heavy, or frequent episodes of bleeding in women before menopause may also be a sign of endometrial cancer.)
  • Symptoms, other than bleeding, do not occur commonly. - "Commonly do not occur" or "there are few in common" or... I feel this could probably be reworked
  • You really need to check for duplicate links. I've gotten two or three in the same paragraph. I'm not removing any more as there are too many.
  • by 3-4 times - by 300 to 400%, or another reworking. "By 3 to 4 times" just feels off
  • Ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer - why the extra "cancers"? Couple instances of this
  • There is a loose association because breast and ovarian cancers are often treated with tamoxifen. - the treatment causes the illness? That's what it reads like to me. What you intend (I think) is that the treatment of another kind of cancer (tamoxifen) can cause endometrial cancer, but that's not what the wording conveys to me. The connection only becomes clear in the following paragraph
  • Women with this disorder have a 5-10% lifetime risk of developing endometrial cancer. - as opposed to ...?
  • Specifically, ovarian granulosa cell tumors and thecomas are ovarian tumors associated with endometrial cancer. - repetition of "ovarian"
  • is not currently significant - when, exactly, is "currently"?
  • CDKN2A are both dablinks
  • 10-20% of endometrial cancers, - I'd refactor to avoid starting sentences with numerals
  • 20% of endometrioid - again
  • 8-30% of atypical - again
  • Why does the Mani source not have vol, issue, and page numbers?
  • The single-sentence or single paragraphs sections a bit further south look really rough. Any way to either expand and/or merge?
  • More to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not My Life[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a 2011 American independent documentary film about human trafficking and contemporary slavery. The article received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, and was later promoted to good article status. The people who made the documentary have been very generous with sharing production images, and I believe the article is now feature-worthy. Neelix (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from EddieHugh[edit]

As a first step, please reduce the quantity of wikilinks. I count 18 in the first para that could be removed without any likely reader suffering. EddieHugh (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale[edit]

Nominator(s): decodet. (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale has been my favorite actress/singer for years. I've been working on her main article since 2009 and I've made over 1,300 edits on it since them. I've put a lot of hard work on it after seeing it fail the FA nomination three times - all of them mainly because of the prose. I took some time to rewrite the article and there was major changes since last time it was nominated. I requested for a peer review two months ago (SNUGGUMS, thanks a lot again!) and a lot of improvements were made. After it was achieved, I requested Wikipedia's Guild of Copy Editors for a FA-quality copyedit and JudyCS was nice enough to help me out. Now I believe the article is finally ready to receive that gold star and therefore here I am for the fourth (and hopefully last) time. decodet. (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Xx (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the debut album by English indie pop band the xx. It exceeded expectations in the media and was a sleeper hit in both the United Kingdom and the United States. The album also received widespread acclaim from critics and won the Mercury Prize in 2010. I believe it meets all the FA criteria and, IMHO, this might be the best article I've written. Dan56 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Leigh Leigh[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp and  Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the grisly murder of a 14-yo schoolgirl in Australia. I am the GAC reviewer of this article. Having examined all the relevant criteria and looked in detail at the background of the story, I believe it is complete for all important details, and all matters of substance and form are of or near to FA standard.  Ohc ¡digame! 09:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Leigh_Leigh_headstone.png: Australia typically doesn't have freedom of panorama for engravings and photographs. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Nikkimaria. I must admit I didn't even know what freedom of panorama was until I read your comment, so please forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject. Section 65 of the 1968 copyright act [1] states: "The copyright in a work to which this section applies that is situated, otherwise than temporarily, in a public place, or in premises open to the public, is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the work..." I can assure you this headstone is in a place that is open to the public. Granted section 65 defines 'work' as "sculptures and to works of artistic craftsmanship", which i'm not 100% a headstone falls into, but I don't see the problem here. I don't think anyone holds the copyright to the headstone, nor do I see how anyone could. The only reason I knew where to find the headstone to take a photo of it is because there is already a photo of it in the Australian Cemeteries Index [2]. Clearly people take photographs of Austrlaian headstones and put them on the internet, apparently without any controversy. Can you explain in a bit more detail what the issue is here? Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Freikorp, that the work is in a place open to the public is not in dispute. However, unlike say a public sculpture or a building, this particular work is primarily two dimensional - its features are engravings and a photo. The Australian copyright act specifies that their freedom of panorama law does not extend to either engravings or photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Franklin Pierce[edit]

Nominator(s): Designate (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about... Franklin Pierce, a president almost always denigrated. Yet in his time, he was one of the bright young stars of the Democratic Party. His efforts to deal with the slavery issue won him lasting, and possibly deserved, condemnation, yet as one of Andrew Johnson's biographers once said, the issues the presidents of their times faced were so overwhelming it would have taken a succession of Lincolns to deal with them properly. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and such not very important quibbles as I had were dealt with then. I found this jointly-written article outstandingly pleasing to read: I ended up feeling quite indignant at the engaging Pierce's low ranking in the hierarchy of US presidents. Well balanced, comprehensive, neutral, nicely illustrated, widely and judiciously referenced, and a really good read: FA quality without doubt. Loud applause to the co-noms! Tim riley talk 20:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your patient peer review and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Support – I caught a few minor formatting issues with the refs but can find nothing else. A fantastic piece of work! Cassiantotalk 22:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that and for your catches!--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review from Nikkimaria[edit]

  • File:First_ladies-pierce.jpg: given the typical long estimates it is possible that the unknown author died less than 100 years ago
It's a very long shot indeed that he did. I've done a bit of internet searching on this, and the photo dates from 1850. He would have had to have been a very young man at the time and lived to be a very old one. Given that he is unknown (and other sources say "unknown" as well), I'm inclined to maintain the tag.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Southern_Chivalry.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • File:President_Franklin_Pierce_grave_concord_NH.jpg should identify copyright status of the memorial itself.
I've deleted that. It was built in 1946 and without a physical inspection I could not say there was no copyright notice.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Source review from Brianboulton[edit]

  • refs 15, 16 require "p." rather than "page"
  • ref 18 requires pp. not p.
  • ref 19 requires pp. not p.
  • ref 51 check page range format (compare, e.g., ref 48)
  • refs 55 and 56 ditto
  • ref 67, "Gara", 38" needs a p.
  • ref 74, p needs full stop
  • ref 115 check page range format
  • ref 122 ditto
  • ref 138 ditto
The Crockett article? That's OK, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Biographies: some have publisher locations, others not. Likewise "other works"
  • The Pierce Manse is a cited source, and should not be listed among ext links

All external links checked and working. Sources appear of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Except as noted above, I've gotten those. Thank you for your source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Oppose not a bad article, but I'm sorry to say this was nominated prematurely for FA.

  • "All of their children died young"..... specify that they had three sons
That either leaves "All of their three sons" which is sloppy, or "Their three sons died young" which leaves room for any number of daughters. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "gruesomely killed" is borderline POV, just say "killed"
I appreciate your point, but when a child is decapitated, or nearly, in the parents' presence, I think the term is fine. I do not think the use of adjectives is POV. POV means you are taking sides on a subject which can be disputed. What is the opposing point of view? Where is it advocated in reliable sources? Every book on Pierce I've consulted dwells to some extent on how horrible that railway disaster was for the Pierces, as it would be for any parent who loses a child, especially in a disaster that they survived but the child did not.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Pierce's credibility was further damaged"..... reputation or image would be better
"Administration" subbed--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Early life and family
Childhood and education
  • Include the names of Pierce's siblings here
  • I think that this is unnecessary detail. Why is this relevant to the reader? They are not his children, and played no part in his political career. They would just be names to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "two of his older brothers fought in the War of 1812"..... specify which ones
  • Ditto. I would not downgrade an article for including them, but it isn't terribly relevant to Pierce's story. There is not the opportunity to present them as individuals.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after "year" in "Later that year he transferred to Phillips Exeter Academy"
  • "By this time he had built a reputation as a charming student, sometimes prone to misbehavior"..... I'm not sure this sentence is even needed
  • It presages his mixed career at Bowdoin.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "his memory for names and faces served him well, as did his personal charm and deep voice"..... "charm" is somewhat POV
Personalities are well within scope for a biography, especially when there's a strong consensus about how a person was perceived in their lifetime. "Charm" isn't really POV, since every source represents him as particularly likable and personable even by a politician's standards. Compare to (FA) Ronald Reagan: "His age and soft-spoken speech gave him a warm grandfatherly image." —Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Even Pierce's enemies admitted he had personal charm. Again, unless there is an opposing point of view. This was part of what advanced Pierce in politics and the law.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
State politics
  • I'm not convinced "hotbed" is the best word choice
  • I've played with alternatives but nothing comes to mind that would not be awkward "New Hampshire had a highly partisan atmosphere". We're open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after "1831" in "By 1831 the Democrats"
Is this really a rule? It seems like personal preference. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after "27" in "At the age of 27"
  • Added, but as Designate implies, this is acceptable either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Given how the "tantamount to election" page is currently proposed to be merged into Safe seat, it's probably best to unlink this and use some other phrasing to describe the election
  • "He had recently become engaged and bought his first house in Hillsborough"..... here you should introduce his wife Jane by name
If the sections were farther apart I would support this, but given the proximity, think it's cleaner to finish off the political section without blurring it too much with the marriage section. —Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Marriage and children
  • "She was slight and constantly ill"..... I don't think everyone is going to automatically know what "slight" means in this instance
  • I've changed to "somewhat gaunt".
  • Remove the "see below" from the bit on Benjamin dying in a train incident
I've redone it as a link to the section. I don't see that the reader should have to wade through sections of prose to find it.
Congressional career
U.S. House of Representatives
  • "shot down challenges" → "declined challenges"
Rephrased somewhat differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "to be an annoyance"..... keep it simple and just say annoying
I was trying to avoid the phrase "abolitionists' agitation annoying", or worse, "abolitionists' agitation an annoyance". Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
U.S. Senate
  • I'd remove "vigorous" from "vigorous debate"
  • I'm not sure it is necessary but I've changed to "much debate".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see that is
  • "his father, sister, and brother"..... specify which sister and brother
  • Again, I don't see that it's worthwhile to name them.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "who was often in financial difficulties" → "who often struggled financially"
  • "He was an able senator, but not an eminent one"..... doesn't read very well or seem encyclopedic
  • Strongly disagree. He was one of the many second-rank senators who are perfectly good representatives of their state but are not national leaders.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Pierce campaigned vigorously throughout his home state"..... "vigorously" doesn't seem like the right word
  • It seems appropriate to me. Is there a difficulty with it? "Enthusiastically" might be a possibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Add a comma after "1841" in "In December 1841 Pierce decided to resign from Congress"
  • See Designate's comment above. We will await comments from further reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Party leader
Lawyer and politician
  • Place a comma after "1842" in "In June 1842 Pierce was named chairman"
  • Also see Designate's comment above.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Calling James K. Polk a "dark horse" is unneeded
Until we come to the section on 1852, where Pierce's dark horse candidacy is widely compared to Polk's. It's foreshadowing and it's in there for a reason. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "an issue which caused a dramatic split between Pierce and his former ally Hale" → "an issue that ended Pierce's alliance with Hale"
  • I think that understates the case. If you look at the following paragraphs, the phrasing is justified. This, and similar stands made Hale an abolitionist leader while Pierce basically wanted to sweep the issue of slavery under the carpet and hope it would go away. And worse than that Hale was doing it in the New Hampshire Democratic Party, which Pierce felt should remain united.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Mexican–American War
  • "even though by the time Grant wrote Pierce had been dead for several years"..... reads awkwardly
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Grant described him this way"..... not very encyclopedic
This way stricken.
Return to New Hampshire
  • Remove "notable" from "in one notable case", and add a comma after "case"
It tips the reader that it's an exceptional matter, not a typical one. In the case of the comma, I think that if we are to be spare of commas, we should be consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "36°30′ N" → "36°30' N" per MOS:QUOTEMARKS
In this case it's not a quotation mark but a prime mark which is governed by different rules. {{coord}} uses prime marks, for example. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "fiasco" the best word choice?
I think it goes beyond "controversy". They ditched their candidate for governor because of his views. I'm minded of when McGovern ditched Shriver because he had been treated for depression. That was certainly a fiasco.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Ahem... McGovern ditched Eagleton, and chose Shriver in his place (how do I know this stuff? Must get out more) Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
My fingers sometimes get ahead of my mind, alas. Thank you for the correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Election of 1852
  • "Their son Benjamin wrote to his mother, hoping that Franklin would not be elected, as neither mother nor son would like to live in Washington"..... any particular reason they didn't?
Jane's hatred of politics has been made known to the reader. Benjamin's motives can only be guessed at, but I'd imagine he was sympathetic to his mother and aware enough of her views not to want her to be First Lady.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Tragedy and transition
  • "Gruesome" in "Pierce was not able to hide the gruesome sight from Jane" is borderline POV (as noted in lead)
See my comments to the lede. An 11 year old torn nearly in half is self-evidently gruesome, especially when it's your 11 year old and the last surviving child.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "which likely affected Pierce's performance as president"..... I'd either find a more definitive answer than "likely", or remove this altogether
  • It's the opinion of his biographers, and is probably not subject to perfect proof. However, it's not stated as definite fact, but a likelihood.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Great sympathy" in "making her public debut in that role to great sympathy" doesn't seem very neutral
  • That's what the source says. Is there an opposing school of thought? Were the American people indifferent to their First Lady being in mourning for her child?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Avoiding the word 'slavery', he emphasized his desire to put the 'important subject' to rest and maintain a peaceful union"..... If including the bit on not saying "slavery", readers will probably ask why he avoided the term
I think the sentence is self-explanatory. He wanted peace and he wanted Congress to stop talking about slavery altogether. Avoiding the term goes along with that goal (as Wallner picked up on) but it would be OR to dwell on it. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Administration and political strife
  • "It quickly became clear that having a Democratic-controlled House and Senate would not ensure a successful presidency"..... something about this just doesn't read well
I think it can be safely deleted.
  • "Pierce and King never communicated once they had been selected as candidates in June 1852"..... why not?
  • Far from unusual for the time. See John Tyler#Vice President for another example. The Veep only became a major factor in the administration in the Eisenhower years (Nixon). Remember that Truman didn't even know about the atomic bomb project?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Foreign and military affairs
  • "The Pierce administration fell in line with the expansionist Young America movement"..... took place during would read better
"Fell in line with" means "went along with", not "coincided with". I don't think it's useful to say it took place during a movement when the parties were so splintered. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Unique" in "a uniquely American, republican image" is borderline POV
  • "Distinctively", then.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't need "unpopular" in "the unpopular Clayton–Bulwer Treaty of 1850"
Deleted.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Bleeding Kansas
  • See above note on "36°30′ N"
Per above response.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
1856 election
  • "In reality his chances of winning"..... needs comma after "reality"
See comment on commas. We don't all write the same. Some people are sparer with commas than others. What is important is consistency.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "none of the three main candidates could clinch two-thirds of the vote"...... none received two-thirds of the vote sounds more professional
  • Rephrased slightly differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "received assurances from Buchanan's managers that this would be the case".... Buchanan's managers assured him
  • It would have been less direct than that. Douglas wasn't there. Buchanan's managers would have reached out to Douglas's political friends, all very indirect. Thus the phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "To soften the blow" doesn't sound very encyclopedic
  • The obvious alternatives involve "sop" and "consolation prize" and I'm not convinced you'd like them better. Open to suggestions.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "vigorously" in "he vigorously attacked Republicans and abolitionists" really needed?
Well, he was criticizing abolitionists his entire career, so this sentence is worthless without the extra punch. The sources portray this speech as unexpectedly aggressive for a lame duck and for Pierce in particular, and it's fair to reflect that here without being too specific about it.
  • "and the author found the retired president as buoyant as ever"..... not convinced this is necessary
  • I think it's a look at a president from some one close to him that we don't always get for an early president. It's helpful to remind the reader now and then that these are more than figures in a faded picture or idealized painting. They walked, talked, had emotions, just like we do, and were as vibrant and alive as we are. They did not live in a black and white photo.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Later life
  • "President Buchanan broke hard from the Pierce administration"..... "broke hard" doesn't read well
  • "altered course"--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Make note of what Jane Pierce died from
I will look to see what can be found.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Added TB.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Civil War
  • "Pierce paid a visit to Michigan, visiting his former Interior Secretary, McClelland, former senator Cass, and others"..... visited..... in Michigan
  • Tweaked, a bit differently.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Final years and death
  • "took a growing toll on his health"..... something about "taking a toll on" doesn't seem very professional. Try something like Pierce's drinking worsened his health, perhaps.
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "He had a brief relationship with an unknown woman in mid-1865"..... I question including something like this when a partner's name is not even known. Also doesn't seem worthy of inclusion if the relationship was only brief.
I don't want to bowlderize him, either.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "A caretaker was hired for him; none of his family members were present in his final days"..... any particular reason known?
He had no one close and his nieces and nephews had their own lives--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Henry's son Frank Pierce received the largest share"..... if known, I would include how much estate Pierce left him
  • I am not sure that dollar figures are relevant over 145 years, when the economy has changed so and the dollar is paper, not gold. In Pierce's day, middle class families could have hot and cold running servants at a trivial expense. Today, not so.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The entire first paragraph doesn't belong here- it focuses on Pierce's negative reception, legacy sections are for positive reception, influence, and such.
I don't agree with that. Stalin and Hitler didn't have legacies? If legacy sections can't be negative then we'd have to avoid them on Wikipedia entirely. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Designate, and negative legacy paragraphs are accepted in FAs (see Richard Nixon as an example)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I feel it would've been better to first go for GAN, better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your view. I am traveling at present but will be replying to these within the next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem, and I commend your efforts so far. However, I do think the best place do to all the needed work would be outside of FAC. After lots of copyediting (GOCE could really help), I suggest GAN, and then maybe another peer review before later renominating for FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Fair points although I had a few comments above. I can't imagine the use of two PRs and a GOCE on such a straightforward article. Designate (talk) 03:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks also. I've made changes where they seemed appropriate and responded where I did not agree. We will await additional reviewers. I should note, as someone who has been reviewing FAs for six or seven years, that there is no "right" way to write an article. People's prose styles differ. A certain amount of conformity is dictated by the MOS, but we have no editor in chief to dictate beyond that. Personally, I will accept a fairly broad range of prose styles. I often would write something differently, in an article that I review, but I don't see it as a reason to ask that it be changed, if it is to its own self true. With respect to POV, adjectives are not POV. POV is taking sides. If something is generally accepted, and thus there are not two sides, it is not POV.
I see no point in a GAN (which is very hit or miss) or GOCE. The article had a comprehensive peer review. We will await further comments by reviewer, and if they are favorable, will ask you to take a second look at the article and to reconsider. In the interim, we would welcome any further comments you may have and thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Support: I have read through the comments and suggestions in the above review, and in general find myself in agreement with the nominators where they have resisted suggested changes. The reference to "all the needed work" seems inappropriate; any outstanding changes are of a relatively minor nature, if not optional, and should be no barrier to the article's promotion. We all have stylistic preferences, but should be prepared to accept the choices of others unless they are plainly wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is a GA right now and has underwent significant peer reviews. It has great encyclopedic value as this person is not a well known figure in world history. A lot of hard work has been put into this article recently and I would love to see it rise to the FA status it deserves. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Étienne, welcome to FAC. On a procedural note, you don't seem to be one of the main editors of this article -- per FAC instructions, have you notified major contributors of this nomination? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Ian Rose (talk · contribs) Hello Ian, yes I did. Here's the diff: [3]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods Done
  • The Russian Revolution section's map could stand to be larger Done
  • File:General_Andranik.jpg: the given tag relies on either author death or publication date being more than 70 years ago - can you demonstrate that either is the case, and if the latter that the author is truly unknown? Same with File:Andranik_wedding_paris_1922.jpg
  • File:Rank_insignia_of_Старши_лейтенант_of_the_Bulgarian_Army_(horizontal).png: what is the copyright status of the original design? Same with File:IRA_F6MajGen_1917_h.png
  • File:Andraniksignature-1-.png needs a US PD tag Done
  • File:Andranik_fedayee.jpg: source link is dead, without a known author we can't verify date of death as being over 70 years ago, and if we could we would still need a US PD tag. Latter two apply also to File:Andranik_on_a_horse.jpg
  • File:Armenian_monastery_of_s_apostles_in_moush.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Also needs a US PD tag. Both issues apply to File:Zoravar_Andranik_in_Sophia_1912.jpg, which also needs a more specific source
  • File:Location_of_the_1894_and_1904_Sasun_uprisings.png: what is the copyright status of the source from which this was derived? Same with File:Western_Armenia_September_1917.png
  • File:Andranik_Caucasian_Campaign_circa_1914-1916.png: under which rationale is this claimed as PD? Done
  • File:Andranik_Zangezur_1918.png: if Andranik is in the photo, who took the photo?
  • File:Andranik_hat.png: source does not support pre-1923 publication. Done Same with File:Andranik_1919.png
  • File:Cimetière_du_Père-Lachaise_-_General_Antranik_Toros_Ozanian.jpg: since France does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the monument?
  • File:Andranik_Ozanian_poster.jpg: scanning a 2D image does not give the scanner copyright of the image. What is the copyright status of this poster?
  • File:MilitaryOrderBravery-Ribbon.gif: the uploader does not hold copyright to this design. Same with File:Vladimir_ribbon.jpg, File:OrderStGeorge4cl_rib.png, File:Legion_Honneur_Officier_ribbon.svg, File:Greek_War_Cross_1917_2nd_class_ribbon.png. Each of these is either not original enough to warrant copyright or has been copied from somewhere and needs its original copyright status clarified.
  • File:Order_of_Saint_Stanislaus_Ribbon.PNG: who is the author and what is their date of death?

'Oppose pending resolution of image issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Didier Drogba[edit]

Nominator(s): Davykamanzitalkcontribsalter ego 01:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is about an Ivorian professional footballer. He is best known for his career at English Premier League club Chelsea where he won three league titles, four domestic titles and the UEFA Champions League in 2011–12. He is the club's fourth highest scorer of all time, and his country's all-time top goalscorer.

The article's initial FAC nomination was not promoted because there were several issues with how it was written and referencing, and since then it has been through a peer review. As of this revision all the issues that surfaced during the previous FAC and the peer review have been addressed, and I believe the article is now ready to be featured.

Death on the Rock[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This is my second attempt at FAC with this article; the first took longer than I expected and I ended up being unavailable, first while I underwent surgery and then I became heavily involved in organising Wikimania. Wikimania's over now and thankfully I'm fully recovered, so I can pick this up again. Having had a look at the previous FAC, I think I've addressed all the outstanding concerns as best I can, but I would welcome more eyes and any further comments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I reviewed this article on its first run, and the only point I raised which was not addressed was the lead. THis has now been addressed, IMO, and I consider it now meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per last time. Johnbod (talk) 10:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comment. I reviewed this last time, and all my concerns have been addressed except for the lead. My concern was that the first paragraph of the lead acted as a summary for the lead itself, giving information that appeared again at the end of the lead. It has been much improved, but I think the last two sentences of the first paragraph are unnecessary. I'd suggest either cutting them altogether, or possibly moving an abbreviated version of them to the last paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for looking again. We shouldn't make people read to the end of three paragraphs to find out the end result, and that it was the first individual documentary to be subject to an independent inquiry is a significant part of its notability, so I think those two sentences are necessary and useful. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's not how I would do it, but I think it's a matter of opinion, and not an issue with the FA criteria, so I've switched to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • Caption that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed.
  • File:Geoffrey_Howe.jpg: according to original source this definitely isn't from 1974, and that licensing tag is questionable. The image from which it is derived has a different tag that makes a bit more sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • According to the file it's cropped from, the copyright holder released it into the public domain via Flickr. Where 1974 came from, I haven't the faintest. I've corrected the date on the file. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever The facts that "Death on the Rock" was accused of sensationalism and that Thames commissioned an independent inquiry are mentioned twice in the lead.

First mention in the lead:

It was condemned by the British government, while tabloid newspapers denounced it as sensationalist. "Death on the Rock" subsequently became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.

Remove the first mention.
Second mention in the lead:

The morning after the broadcast, several tabloid newspapers attacked the documentary, accusing it of sensationalism and "trial by television". [...] As a result of the retraction, Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary.

Replace "Thames commissioned an independent inquiry into the making of "Death on the Rock"—the first time an inquiry had been commissioned into the making of an individual documentary" with ""Death on the Rock" became the first individual documentary to be the subject of an independent inquiry commissioned by Thames, in which it was ultimately largely vindicated.", because "commissioned", "inquiry", and "into the making of" are said twice in the second mention as blockquoted. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 21:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Fez (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): czar  04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

On the occasion of Polytron's recent security breach, I thought it apt to seek a bronze star for Fez. It's an underdog of a game that received outstanding reviews but was buried under a mountain of coverage pertaining to its outspoken creator, Phil Fish. The game could have been famous only its relation to Fish, but turned out to have incredible merit on its own. I started to edit this article early in the year and it quickly became a complete rewrite with many interwoven substories about the precariousness of indie game development, the growing pains of online games journalism, the rekindling of interest in the 8-bit "retrogaming" aesthetic, and how esoteric game mechanics could meet the standard Nintendo-inspired influences yet still feel fresh... and receive widespread acclaim. The sourcing is comprehensive, and has led to two separate articles, now GAs: Phil Fish and Development of Fez. It also led to a spate of free use images and audio releases, including the Fez cover art, which became a featured picture. Considering the depth and EV of the gameplay video and other assets, I see more featured pictures in the future.

But this article was one of my bigger labors of love this year, and it led to my interest in asking devs to relicense their assets for the Commons, which has been a successful effort by most standards, as well as my interest in indie game GAs, of which I've had more than several since. The devs were really excited to see the article make the front page of Wikipedia. As relayed back to me, Fish said on Facebook, "somebody took it upon themselves to write a surprisingly long and accurate wikipedia entry for FEZ. im kind of amazed" I had other fun quotes (and Twitter retweets and favs), but I don't know where I put them and I'm leaving town in a few hours. It's been a good run, and the article has touched many people, so I'd like to take it full circle now. The prose (of a somewhat controversial subject) has seen few non-vandal edits since the rewrite, which leads me to believe that it stands to scrutiny and is sufficiently clear and concise. I believe Fez meets the featured article criteria, and I look forward to your feedback. czar  04:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

Support as per comments below.

  • Overall this is a pretty freaking great article, if I may say so myself. All the references are in good shape, with the right date formats, authors, etc, the prose flows well, and all images have adequate FURs. Believe it or not, I haven't found a single issue with the page. Good job on it, Czar! URDNEXT (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • (Please do not use 3rd level headers or higher, they corrupt the summary list of FA nominations. See FA-guidelines.) GermanJoe (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, my bad. Sorry for any incoveniences, GermanJoe! Not happening again. URDNEXT (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Looks great; I just have a few complaints:

  • ""Continuum" is a synthesized rendition of Frédéric Chopin's Prelude, Op. 28, No. 4." - Can this be expanded or otherwise merged into something else? I really, really don't like one-line paragraphs.
  • "Fish himself became known for his outspoken and acerbic public persona." - Can you expand a little? Despite all the hype, I actually can't think of any of Fish's actual outbursts other than the cancellation of Fez 2 and saying that the Japanese game industry sucks (which I kind of agree with, when taken in context).
  • Per WP:EASTER, I don't recommend simply linking "who says, "Hey! Listen!"" - to Navi.
  • "Fish "fiercely criticized" the game's co-publisher, Microsoft Games Studios, for botching its release,[38] with a lack of promotion and publicity.[38]" - Why is #38 cited twice?

Tezero (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One-line ¶ expanded. I purposely did not go into detail on the specifics of Fish's tabloid-y media coverage because I felt it was non-neutral and non-encyclopedic info. The sources that say he was outspoken go into enough detail, though if you think something specific should be added (perhaps that he made public comments about the industry or something like that) let me know. "Hey! Listen!" should be a redirect to Navi as it's something referenced throughout her article. I'd explain its reference to Navi in the prose, but since the source does not, I expect the logical leap to be made without it appearing as an Easter egg link. #38 looks like a floating citation error—now fixed. czar  08:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I think info on Fish's acerbic nature would be plenty encyclopedic, as it lets the reader draw their own conclusions about him instead of saying "he's a jerk; just trust us", but if you feel strongly about it I won't belabor the matter. And I guess that's a good enough Navi justification, so I can support this in peace. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Media check (GermanJoe) - all OK[edit]

  • All images have sufficient source and author information and are CC - OK.
  • Flickr-images show no signs of problems or Flickr-washing - OK.
  • OTRS-images and soundfile have been checked by a member of the OTRS-team - OK.
  • (added a few more personality rights info tags to play it safe). GermanJoe (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review by Tezero[edit]

  • All sources look reliable; a few like seem kinda iffy but they're not used for anything substantive but their areas of expertise so I'm fine. Bandcamp's a social media site but it's being used here only as a first-party source so that's also okay.
  • Spotchecks:
  • 4: good; I can see that not much more was elaborated on about Fish's caustic remarks
  • 3: good
  • 12: good; nice job archiving the fickle
  • 7: good
  • 27: good, though you might want to specify that it was the "You got 2D in my 3D, or maybe 3D in my 2D" award. Leaving it simply as an "award" implies it was a GotY or something.
  • 13: good

As a result, I can continue to support this nomination. Source review passes. Tezero (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Caesar Hull[edit]

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Here we have the story of another Rhodesian-born World War II flying ace, Caesar Hull, who left the family farm in Swaziland to join the RAF in 1935. After a few years' concentrating on aerobatics, war intervened, compelling Hull to put his talents to other uses. He played an important role in the fighting around Narvik during May 1940, among other things shooting down four German aircraft in an afternoon over the town of Bodø. For this he won the DFC. The RAF's first Gloster Gladiator ace, he was shot down himself the next day and soon thereafter invalided to England. He returned to action in August 1940 as the commander of No. 43 Squadron RAF in the Battle of Britain—one of only three Southern Rhodesian-born members of "The Few". He was killed in action a week later during a dogfight over south London.

This article passed GA about six months ago and I believe it is at least close to the FA criteria. Any and all comments are welcome, and I hope you enjoy the article. Cliftonian (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support – thoroughly researched and cited, well paced and balanced; the article is excellently written: the contrast between Hull's gung-ho shout of joy at the declaration of war and his death at the age of 26 is set out with remorseless clarity. Moreover, I think the nominator's handling of the Memorials section shows a restraint that would be beyond many of us. In terms of the FA criteria, in my opinion the article meets them all on prose. I don't presume to judge the admissibility of images, excellent as the existing ones are. A really fine article. But can we have a happy ending to your next FAC, Cliftonian? – Tim riley talk 18:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the very kind words and the support, Tim. I will try and find a more cheerful subject for next time, I promise. Cliftonian (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Isn't it "invalided", and not "invalidated"? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Argh! So it is. How embarrassing. Thanks! =) Cliftonian (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the "defence of Narvik" you refer to here, I hope that won't be part of the FA summary when the time comes. After all, after capturing Narvik on 9 April, it was the Germans who were fighting on the defensive in the Narvik area. The Allies and Norwegians only captured Narvik on 28 May, and at that point the Allies had already decided to evacuate. Hull and others were in effect fighting to hold back German forces who were advancing from further south in Norway, forces that could otherwise have interfered with the evacuation. The rank and file Allied troops knew nothing about this planned evacuation, indeed nor did the Norwegian government, the latter being kept in the dark because the British did not trust they would keep the evacuation secret. Plus the Allied forces on the ground around Narvik were mostly Norwegian, French and Polish, it was further south, around Bodø (where Hull & Co. were sent), that the troops were Anglo-Norwegian. Different fronts entirely, but closely connected, as the southern (Bodø) front prevented German forces from rescuing the trapped German forces further north (Narvik). The article is fine, I just got a tiny bit worried about the future FA summary. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my mistake in the summary above—I've changed it now to say simply "fighting around Narvik". Thank you for the explanation, it is much clearer to me now. Cliftonian (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thumbs up Manxruler (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This is yet another example of the value of Wikipedia's reviewing processes. Going through the PR, GAN or FAC process is not always comfortable, but it don't half polish our drafts up. Kudos to Cliftonian and Manxruler! Tim riley talk 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

  • all images are PD (age or own work) with complete source and author information. GermanJoe (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Just a few issues to be cleared up:

  • "Hull grew up between Rhodesia, South Africa and Swaziland": I suspect you don't mean "between" geographically, but rather that his early years were divided among these places. If so you should reword accordingly. This issue occurs in the lead and in "Early life".
  • Link dogfight at first mention
  • "Luftwaffe" is sufficiently used and understood in English not to warrant italicisation. Likewise "Stuka" later on.
  • "headed to the aid" → "heading to the aid" (more idiomatic)
  • "which were adjudged to be heroic" is superfluous. The award of the DFC covers this.
  • Question: is Shangani a town? The WP disambiguation does not mention it, only the river (and the patrol).
  • Shangani is also a small settlement, both at the time and today largely dedicated to farming and mining. See here. I've added it to the disambiguation page and have redlinked it in the article—I'll make a short page later. Cliftonian (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Concise and informative. Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much Brian. Cliftonian (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support, subject to a sources check which, if no one does it in the next couple of days or so, I will do. All the above issues resolved satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and for your help Brian. Hope you're well, take care. Cliftonian (talk) 19:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments -- Recusing from coord duties; I have an open FAC of my own right now and besides I can hardly resist another WWII ace article...

  • Copyedited as usual, so pls let me know any issues -- outstanding points:
    • I got what you meant by "because of his ignorance of Afrikaans" in the lead but I think it'd be simpler to just use the wording in the main body, i.e. "because he did not speak Afrikaans". I don't think repeating the phrasing is a prob but if you want to avoid that then I'd just swap 'em.
      • OK, I've gone with using the same wording twice. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "Peter Townsend, who joined the squadron with the same level of seniority as Hull" -- bit of a mouthful, "seniority" is an important concept in the military but do we simply mean he was the same rank as Hull?
      • The source (Musgrave) says "Peter Townsend&nsbp;... also joined the squadron, and with the same level of seniority he and Caesar became close friends." The other sources I have seen just mention them joining around the same time and having the same rank. Cliftonian (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "nine possibles" -- the usual term is "probables", what does the source say?
      • Source says: "during seventy individual combats, [No. 263 Sqn] claimed at least twenty-six victories with another nine possible, against limited own losses". Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "The first of these successfully landed in German-held territory before burning out, allowing the crew and paratroopers aboard to exit safely, but the second spiralled out of control and crashed, killing eight German paratroopers." -- A little confused about just which aircraft are referred to, presumably the Ju 52s but you've already said they were "destroyed", which seemed to be the end of the matter. Let me know and perhaps we can come up with slightly different wording.
      • The problem is that we know that of the three Ju 52s two had paratroopers on board and one had supplies, and that we don't know in which order Hull destroyed them. I have tried to reword: " ... destroyed two more Ju 52s. These German aircraft had been heading to the aid of the hard-pressed German forces fighting around Narvik; one of the Ju 52s was loaded with supplies, while the other two were carrying Fallschirmjäger paratroops. One of the latter aircraft successfully landed in German-held territory before burning out, allowing the crew and paratroopers aboard to exit safely, but the second spiralled out of control and crashed, killing eight German paratroopers." Is this better? Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "Hull expressed considerable surprise at this sudden rise in station." -- I assume "this rise in station" means "his elevation to squadron commander"; if so I'd suggest the wording I've just used would be clearer. Also is there any reason given for his surprise, since moving from flight commander to squadron commander was a logical progression?
      • It doesn't say exactly. Perhaps because he had only recently returned to duty after being wounded? The wording is : "As if to emphasise his surprise at suddenly becoming CO, he followed the description of himself as "Commanding No 43 Sqn" in the endorsement of Badger's log with four exclamation marks." I've added this little detail to the article. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "On 4 September, Hull led a group of Hurricanes in a decisive aerial victory over a large group of Bf 110s over coastal Sussex." -- I think we need more detail on how this constituted a decisive victory; are there any figures available for victories v. losses, as with the previous engagement? FWIW, I can probably check a source or two myself today or tomorrow...
      • Had a squizz at Stephen Bungay's The Most Dangerous Enemy, probably the best account I've read of the Battle of Britain, and there's no figures re. 43 Sqn on 4 September there. However he does mention that the German formation that Hull and his boys came up against on 7 September comprised almost 1,000 aircraft (around 350 bombers and 600 fighters), so it might be worth mentioning that -- I can supply full reference/page details if you're interested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
        • By all means, anything that would improve the article has my support. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) The source (Saunders, p. 45) says:
"As with the 1st [of September], the 3rd was less hectic, allowing No 43 Sqn to catch its breath before another big battle on the 4th, when Caesar Hull led the unit into a large formation of Bf 110s over the Sussex coast just after lunchtime. Flt Lt Dalton-Morgan, freshly out of the sick bay, avenged his wounds by sending a Bf 110 down in flames north of Worthing and chasing another until it force-landed in a field near Shoreham. Sgt Jeffreys also downed a Bf 110 in a field, and Hull and Upton seriously damaged two more Zerstorers. A fourth Bf 110 was chased across the Channel by Belgian Plt Off van den Hove d'Ertsenrijck, who sent it crashing into the sea seven miles south of Brighton, although his Hurricane (L1386) was hit in return, and he had to make an emergency landing at RAF Ford. The Messerschmitts massacred by No 43 Sqn that day were from ZGs 2 and 76, although the multiple claims and losses make it difficult, with any certainty to tie up individual 'kills'."
I've fleshed the passage on this out a bit. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Structure and, aside perhaps from the point immediately above, detail look fine to me.
  • Happy to go with Joe's assessment of the images.
  • Source-wise, notwithstanding a welcome review by Brian or Nikki, I have to admit I'm wondering about the emphasis placed on the Bill Musgrave article, since I don't know his qualifications or how much quality control the B of B Historical Society exercises on material it publishes. Do other reviewers have any thoughts? All others look reliable to me.
    • I personally think the article is okay as it seems to generally match up with the other sources I have seen but I'll bow to consensus on this. I have cut down the references to Musgrave by about half, substituting more stable references to Beedle, Saunders etc. About half of the remaining references to him are backed up by others, and the other half are more obscure, anecdotal-type stuff about his childhood and family. In my search for more sources I also found material for a new section at the end about his character and reputation, which I think fleshes out the article nicely and wraps it up a bit better. Cliftonian (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry haven't been back lately, I will look the whole thing over again soon. In the meantime, I think you're on the right track with Musgrave, that is you should probably use him just to flesh out early life and/or anecdotal info but concentrate on your other, more clearly reliable, sources for the operational aspects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • A couple of long quotes in Character that should be shortened or blockquoted
  • FN12, 26, 30: page formatting
  • Why is Osprey wikilinked in Saunders but not Holmes? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oriental Film[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about a fairly unproductive film corporation, even for the 1940s Dutch East Indies, but one which spent money as if it were going out of style. Oriental was only open for a little over a year, but it brought Fifi Young and her husband Njoo Cheong Seng to film, and helped a few prominent stage actors/singers start their film careers. This has had a great GA review by Seattle and a non-formal PR by SchroCat. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK.

  • Images are PD in Indonesia and the US. Sufficient source information (authors mostly unknown). GermanJoe (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the image review. Glad to see you're back at FAC! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the Filmografi cites have locations, others don't
  • Some of the books have locations, others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I believe I've gotten them all. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Obama[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Projects: WP:OBAMA, WP:BIOG, WP:FASHION, WP:ILLINOIS, WP:CHICAGO, WP:POLITICS, WP:WMNHIST, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government
Leading editors: User:Tvoz, User:Loonymonkey, User:Bobblehead, User:Happyme22, User:HughD

This article is about the First Lady of the United States. Now that she has been in office for 6 years, there have been a lot of eyes on the article and there has been a lot of refinement since the last nomination 4.5 years ago. This is a very odd nomination. Among the 18 people with at least a dozen edits to the article, no one has edited the article since November 2013. Thus, we can see that the article is now very stable. I think it is greatly improved over the previously nominated versions. Although I remain the leading editor in terms of number of edits, the vast majority of those were prior to FAC1. Nonetheless, I will take the lead on this nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments - Several things stand out to me when I read this:  Noahcs  (Talk) 15:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • LGBT Rights section has one sentence that is over half the paragraph. Also, with the repeated use of the phrase "his support"", it appears to read like an advertisement for Barack instead of Michelle.  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Better, but the first paragraph still seems off to me. First, they are not reflecting on Michelle Obama herself, they are mostly referring to policies and personal views that Barack Obama shares. Second, the comments were given at what was basically a fundraiser which seems to be incompatible with WP:NPOV. It still reads like an advertisement written for Barack. Perhaps if you changed it to something like "Both her and her husband have been committed to _______. Together they support _____. They feel ______. They both have been _____." I assume their viewpoints match on these issues?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • On that same issue, shouldn't the Let's Move section be bigger? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her healthy foods program her signature program?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's Move! has its own article. This section summarizes that and has a {{main}} tag to send the reader to a more detailed coverage of the topic. This article is not about Let's Move. The dedicated article is 7449 characters of readable prose, while this section is 1541 characters. Note that the WP:LEAD of that article, which is also suppose to summarize the topic is only 1371 characters. That is a good size for a summary. If that article were really large and it had a full-size LEAD (about 3000 characters), I would be more worried about the content here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Only two sentences and one source under "Support of Barack Obama US House and Senate campaigns".  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Can we merge "Support of Barack Obama US House and Senate campaigns" and "2008 Presidential campaign and election" to a "Early campaigns"? How much encyclopedic content do political wives have regarding their husband's early careers. I might be able to find content about how the couple considered his foray into politics. In fact, some content may have gotten thrown out with the bathwater during some of the high vandalism periods.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Also note that the family section has a lot of content related to how his political career affected the family. Do you think all the content is where it should be?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I think her life before and after meeting Obama should be more distinct; the article blurs the line between them. I would definitely consider moving the section about her daughters to the bottom under "First Lady". I'm not sure if I would give "Religion" its own subsection, but that's fine either way.  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Note that meeting Obama now is the start of a subsection. What stuff about her daughters are you talking about.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm referring to the section starting at "The Obamas' daughters attended the...". It seems that there should be a family life section under "First Lady" that shows their lives while they are in office.  Noahcs  (Talk) 19:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Everything in that paragraph before "Malia and Sasha now attend Sidwell Friends School..." belongs where it is. That is not FLOTUS content. I am not sure how to fit the rest of the paragraph in the FLOTUS section either although an argument might be made that it belongs there. I am not sure it really does.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Family and Education" seems a bit long, couldn't it be split up into other sections?  Noahcs  (Talk) 18:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a tough subject to write about because so many things overlap with her. This article has to balance information about Michelle, Barack, her role as first lady, his presidency, and their family as a whole. I think the nominator has done a good job, but I'm not sure about Featured Status just yet  Noahcs  (Talk) 20:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment This version

  • On March 20, 2012, Michelle Obama said her husband's Supreme Court nominees will weigh in on decisions that will determine whether Americans can "love whomever they choose." "Jarrett, Michelle Obama pushed for gay marriage". Washington Wire. 5/9/12. Retrieved January 22, 2013.  That link is to an unrelated photo at Time. The date 5/9/12 is ambiguous and should be turned into prose.
  • On her first trip abroad in April 2009, she toured a cancer ward with Sarah Brown, wife of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Do we need this? What does it tell us? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Using that as a highlight of her first trip abroad, sort of tells us about what type of person she his. It is not like they dragged her around town kicking and screaming. Also, she surely has her own publicity machine. If this is the first highlight, we should show the readers what her publicity machine produced as her first highlight.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I am off to the gym. I will look at these in a few hours.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Support I've made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not its a wiki. I've checked prose and a couple of the sources. This is broadly there, glad you didn't trivialise this. But I have a couple of queries. I think there is a clash between "As the wife of a Senator, and later the First Lady, she has become a fashion icon and role model for women" and the later bits about her being the least known candidate's spouse. She may still be less well known than Hilary Clinton's spouse, but there were other candidates in that race. Do you have sources for her being a fashion icon as a senator's wife, or would it be more accurate to say something like "As the wife of a presidential candidate, and especially as First Lady, she has become a fashion icon and role model for women". "Obama advocated of her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it." may make sense in American English but to me it jars "Obama advocated for her husband's policy priorities by promoting bills that support it." would I think be slightly better; if it means that she lobbied Senators and Congressmen to support certain bills then I would prefer that you say that. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sonic X[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

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

URDNEXT, do you have any thoughts yet? Tezero (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wait a second, looking at it right now... URDNEXT (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think mentioning trailers is notable enough. Tezero
  • I've snipped it from the infobox as it doesn't reveal much information. I do, however, want to keep them in the body text as they make up pretty much the only information we have about the show's early development. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 2nd paragraph, The plot follows a group of anthropomorphic animals originating in the games—such as Sonic the Hedgehog, Tails, Amy Rose, and Cream the Rabbit—and a human boy named Chris Thorndyke I think the "such as" should be removed. URDNEXT (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, it's not only them. They're the main ones who are with Chris most of the time in seasons one and two, but Rouge, Knuckles, Shadow, etc. are also important parts of the series. Tezero (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Image and source review by czar[edit]

While I don't feel prepared to do a prose review for this article, I'd like to contribute an image and source review:

  • Three fair use images, all with rationales. Cover art is too large (length times width > 100,000 pixels, so tagged for resize). Cover art rationale is good. Still image rationale could use an expansion on "These characters, the art, and the setting would be difficult to describe adequately in text only." Comic book rationale needs expansion on almost all criteria.
  • Resized cover art; it's a little under 90,000 pixels now. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Beefed up still image rationale. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm actually not sure the comic image is necessary; do you think things like this are standard? I've never seen another anime with a comic book adaptation for comparison. Tezero (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think an image could be useful since it's a comic, but as we have a limit on fair use assets in an article, might I suggest adding a section of a strip as an example instead of the cover art?
I'll take a look. I've also considered a different cover that shows more than just Sonic speeding at the screen. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I can delve into the strips if you want, but they're full-page comics so I don't know how much a reduced image would give a reader. I kinda like these covers: 13 26 30 27 34 - they show the comics' relatively silly and non-canonical nature, and for what it's worth some of them show what Bokkun looks like. You can view them, right, czar? (I don't really want to log out of my account to check, because I'm not sure I remember my password.) Tezero (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I can see all but 26. Perhaps 34 or 13? I wonder what they'll be like at low-res, though. Even if the strip is full-page, that's a better case for the fair use rationale than cover art apropos of nothing.
I think I'll go with 13, then, czar; it more explicitly shows something that corroborates the text and wouldn't happen in the actual show, and it doesn't have the minor illustration flaw of showing Amy with human feet (they're more like blobs). Any further comments? I assume this needs a few spotchecks? Tezero (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
czar: done. Tezero (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No free use images
  • What free use images do you think would be appropriate? I don't think they're standard for anime articles; I can't remember the last time I used one in a GA or FA other than Pokémon Channel. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not required at all—I was just noting that there weren't any. I imagine the only ones you could use here would be photos of the people involved in voicing or drawing or creating the series.
  • The article associates this show with the "gotta go fast" catchphrase, but does a source actually mention that this was the first venue to initiate the catchphrase?
  • No, but the credits cite that it's the show's theme song and, well, there's no evidence of it appearing any earlier. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not so hot on the interview sources, but the current norm is to allow them as long as they're not excessively sketchy
  • Yeah, it's kind of a weird rule; I hope it helped to verify that a couple had been linked from Mike Pollock's website. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I thought that was a smart way to handle those, even if it departs somewhat from typical citation method
  • Citations appear consistent, for the most part. Archie Comics citations need final punctuation. Books need publisher information as a minimum (ideally with city). Highbeam citation is incorrect.
  • Done for Archie. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Only one had this publisher issue, but done. Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with it? Tezero (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:VG/RS check: Games Asylum needs to be vetted—not sure author credibility is enough. GamesFirst has shaky notability—should also be vetted. Also not sure about the sources used for the "gotta go fast" final refs.
  • As for the "gotta go fast" sources, I can remove them if you want, but they're only being used to cite the appearance of a phrase in game journalism. Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why wouldn't author credibility be enough for Games Asylum? The site didn't write it; he did. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • GamesFirst looks the shakiest of the three; how are sites typically vetted? So far I've just gone by whether they're already listed at WP:VG/RS, but I don't really understand the methodology behind that or how it might apply to GamesFirst. Tezero (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
If the author was the sole expert on the subject (e.g., a professor), she wouldn't need an editorial staff checking her work. (Even still, that's a self-published source method—usually we rely on a publication for reliability.) If it's a journalist, even a known journalist, the idea is that the publication (the reliable source) provides the editorial integrity through an editorial policy, to keep the content accurate. Unless the journalist is a Sonic expert, she'd need editorial support. Sources can be vetted at WT:VG/RS—just follow the directions at the top and indicate why you find the source credible. Other editors will search for the backgrounds of the main writers, look for an editorial policy, and check how often the source is cited by other publications.
I'll ask, with a tag of urgency as this is an FAC. I suppose it wouldn't be catastrophic if these were found unreliable - I deliberately squeezed the other reviewers' toothpaste tubes hard just in case - but I'd also like to have a larger opinion pool. We'll see what happens. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Impulse Gamer a source where we'd care about their review? Is there a vetted anime source list I should know about?
  • Not as far as I know. I get the feeling the Anime project is pretty liberal on sources as long as they're reasonably professional. Impulse is not in WP:VG/RS; should I remove it? Tezero (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd remove Impulse unless there is an argument for its reliability. Otherwise it's just some guy's opinion on the Internet
Done. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 19: ✓
  • I'll pause here for now
  • Highly recommend archiving the unarchived sources
  • I've never used WebCite before; I'm setting up an account now to check it out. Tezero (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No need to sign up, just use and enter the URL and an email. I can show you shortcuts for using it with Google Chrome if you end up using it enough
czar, done. Tezero (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

czar  23:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Pobeda[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • File:Naval_Ensign_of_Russia.svg: source link is dead
    • If this were anything more simple geometric shapes, I'd be concerned about this, but since that's all it is, I don't believe that this is a problem.
  • File:Pobeda1904Port-Artur.jpg: if author is unknown, how can we be sure date of death is more than 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right, we can't. I've deleted the PD-70 tag and added a US Navy one as we can't be sure who actually took the photo and rule out a naval attache. The photo ended up in Navy hands, either by purchase or by its own people, so I can only assume that copyright ended up with them as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support I don't have much, and it's not worth holding the ship for ...
  • "The ship was transferred" Wouldn't "assigned" be better, given that it didn't have a previous posting?
  • Good catch.
  • Construction
"at a cost of 10,050,000 rubles" this feels awkwardly tacked on the sentence. I know it refers to how much the ship cost, but grammatically, it doesn't seem to meet up with anything.
  • It's thematically linked, I believe, to the official acceptance of the ship. But if that doesn't work, do you think that I should split it off into its own sentence?
  • Yellow Sea
"Around 18:00, her topmasts were destroyed ... " This sentence is a bit confusing because I gather it's combining damage from Probeda and damage from what happened to another ship. I think they should be separated.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think, rather, that I'll delete the bit about the topmasts entirely as it's not particularly important to this ship since she wasn't a flagship that needed to signal her subordinate ships. Thanks for reviewing this so promptly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment, leaning Support -- Recusing from coord duties, I copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and, having checked changes made since then I'm pretty close to supporting for FA. Just one thing, I can see you've changed the emphasis of when she was likely scrapped, which is fine, but I'm not sure about the wording of it. Finishing with "some sources disagree" leaves one hanging and, besides, there's only one source cited, so is it really some or just one? Based on what I see here, I'd prefer the end to be worded "She was probably scrapped in 1922–23, but at least one source suggests she was refloated and hulked, serving until being broken up at Kure in 1946", citing both McLaughlin and Jentschura et al, and then your footnote could just be along the lines of "She is not listed in Fukui Shinzo's authoritative Japanese Naval Vessels at the End of World War II". Happy to discuss, of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That works well, I think, with one modest tweak to your wording of the note. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
No prob, happy to support. FTR, as well as prose, structure, detail and images, I looked over the sources at ACR and the one minor issue I saw was rectified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Indian Head cent[edit]

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

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

Images: Captions that are not complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, as always. I know which one you are talking about; the GAN reviewer felt it was a sentence, and I am accordingly not inclined to change it. --Wehwalt (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)(the one of the Civil War token)


  • By providing an exact date, which is actually later than I'd have thought, it almost sounds like something specific happened that caused the silver coinage to disappear. But I rather expect that that was the culmination of a gradual process; am I correct? If so, you might want to change commerce in June 1862 to "by" June 1862. Canada was mostly using US silver and gold coins at that point, though they had issued their own coppers by then and there were also some provincial copper issues.
Not really gradual, though Carothers indicates there may have been some hoarding by merchants by the start of 1862, though more in anticipation of a shortage of change than in an attempt to profit. But in June, the value of silver coins vs. paper or gold rose to the point where it was worth exporting them to Canada, where they could be exchanged for gold on a par basis as Canada remained on the gold standard. "The operation became profitable as soon as the gold discount on paper exceeded the costs of collecting silver, shipping it, and bringing back the gold." p. 155.
  • beginning in 1874, the Mint re-issued these, lowering the demand for new cents. Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but the Mint didn't recoin these, but just pulled them out from whatever vault they'd been sitting since being redeemed?
Yes, exactly. I'll clarify. Only the bronze ones, the copper-nickel ones were melted.
  • I'd shorten United States Post Office Department to the Post Office.
  • In late 1908, Roosevelt sat for sculptor shouldn't this be "sent"?
No, sat. Brenner was designing a Isthmian Canal Commission medal to be given to (American) employees of multiple years' service. Roosevelt appeared on them.
  • Minor point, but suffixes like LLC and Inc. need not be included in the bibliographical cites. Not actionable here, but you could save yourself some typing in the future.
  • Put Mackenzie's title in title case. Other sources and cites look good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I've taken care of those, other than the LLC which I shall leave as is for now. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • AND THEIR NAME IS LEGION, - All caps in the original? I cracked up reading this, BTW.
Yes. Snowden and coin collectors of the time had an interesting relationship. Did you get the "blizzard" joke?
  • According to Breen - Introduce him?
  • James Longacre did often sketch his elder daughter, and there are resemblances between the depictions of Sarah Longacre and the various representations of Liberty on Longacre' - can we avoid repeating "Longacre" so much?
Pared down to one.
  • , and did any wish to order in bulk, they could be purchased at a discount - what does this add? Also, would "anyone" work better?
I think it's interesting that money could be bought for less than face value.
  • Many of these tokens were made of bronze, copper with an admixture of tin and zinc to strengthen it, - why not just link bronze and leave out the definition?
  • Redesign and change of composition (1859–1864) - a fairly long section... perhaps split along the lines of "Redesign" and "Change of composition"? Trimming some of the politics might help too.
I think it's useful information, and if the reader is reading this, he's here for the history. Split.
  • but at Roosevelt's request, developed it for the double eagle after learning that under the 1873 act, an eagle could not appear on the cent. - feels like this could be simplified
I think the objection is to the triple use of eagle, so I've eliminated one of them.
  • Standardize whether or not you nowrap dates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Axed. I think I've got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Excellent article. Fifty years condensed into 27k characters. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oliver Evans[edit]

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

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

Hi, thanks for working on this. My first thought is about the lead: four well-composed paragraphs are enough. I realize cutting down is difficult, especially when a lot of work was put in the body of the article, but as an introduction and summary it's too much. Hekerui (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I've shortened the lead section. Unus Multorum (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments by L1A1 FAL[edit]

Source check

Note: for the purpose of clarity, all citation numbers are given as of this revision, unless otherwise noted--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I've addressed all of your concerns L1A1 FAL, except for replacing the reviews by BBC Music and Q magazine. I think the BBC website is undergoing a reconstruction at the moment, and I'll update the url as soon as I can; as for Q, I don't have the September 1988 edition of the journal, so I went using CD Universal as a reference, which quotes the Q column.--Retrohead (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
That's all I got for now. I'll keep an eye on this and pop in if I have any comments about the sources or anything else--L1A1 FAL (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by LuciferMorgan[edit]

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

Added it in the certification table. Thanks for the reminder.--Retrohead (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Might be worth adding to the "Commercial performance" section as well. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Consider it done.--Retrohead (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The album's front cover is mentioned in the introduction, but nowhere else? A glaring omission this is, because there can be nothing in the lead which isn't discussed later on in the article. Lead's meant to summarise, not have exclusive information. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it adequate to add it to the background? It's too tiny to have a section of its own, and none of the other sections seems like a good fit to it.--Retrohead (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Could do, I guess. If you tie it in with the revealing of the album title etc. at the end of that section. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. I've shaken the order of the sentences a bit in order to avoid being repetitive with the prose in the lead.--Retrohead (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
There was still an awful lot of repetition from the lead to the article body, so I reworked the material to reduce the problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Media review
  • File:Metallica_-_And_Justice_for_All.ogg: purpose of use should be expanded. Lyrical meaning can be conveyed with lyrics without the inclusion of a sample, so you need to be able to justify why a sample should be here. Same with File:Metallica_-_One.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've filled a more detailed rationale for both samples. I suppose the images are fine too.--Retrohead (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Flight Unlimited III[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from Tezero[edit]

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

  • Removed the link.
  • Likewise with "artificially intelligent" - actually, "computer-controlled" might be a better choice, although "AI" is used later - just something to consider
  • If memory serves, I've wikilinked artificial intelligence in every video game article I've ever worked on, up through FU2 and Thief 2. Not sure why it would need to change now. As for "computer-controlled", I'm not in love with that phrase. Technically, the computer controls everything that happens in a game, even though some of it is influenced by user input. "Artificially intelligent" is a phrase I used in FU2 without incident, and I think it's clearer than the alternative, so I'd prefer to stick with it.
  • Determinism, eh? Alright, that's fine; it was just a stylistic qualm, a minor one. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the player may select what weather to encounter before a flight" - What or which? In other words, can you choose multiple weather effects? Elaborate a bit.
  • Did some work on it. See what you think.
  • "wanted to move on to Flight Unlimited III, while others wanted to create Flight Combat" - Had these projects and their titles already been decided on, or is it just that some wanted to work on a sequel to FUII and others a wholly new IP?
  • Flight Combat and Flight Unlimited III are both explicitly named in the survey.
  • Development's a bit thick - keep the information, that's fine, but consider splitting it into subsections.
  • Added a subsection. How's that?
  • That's fine. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be back when you've addressed these/when I get around to returning. Tezero (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • "He left after the game's completion to join" - can you elaborate a bit on what this is?
  • Done.

Everything else looks fine, I think. As always, I do prefer issue-by-issue reviewing rather than reviewer-by-reviewer, but as far as the latter format goes Reception is fine. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Last issue addressed; many thanks for the review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Subbord 5/5 breddy gud :DDDDDD Tezero (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar[edit]

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  • Copyedited a bit
  • Thanks. I edited a few parts that weren't true to the sources, or that otherwise made the content less grammatical or harder to understand. (Also, as a note, "due to" and "because of" are not interchangeable.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Caption phrases do not need final punctuation
  • Fixed.
  • While I'm not blown away by the content, I see the importance of having this article pass FAC for the featured topic
  • Really have no idea what you're talking about. Clarify and I'll take steps to address it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • not sure the "imported" wikilink to porting is proper
  • Dev could use more expansion on why they were split and what Flight Combat is
  • There is no more information on why they split. Added an explanation of Flight Combat. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The contract also stipulated that any advances provided by Electronic Arts were to be paid back from the royalties of both games." Is this necessary? It seems like foreshadow that this becomes a problem later but it isn't
  • It did become a problem later, but it's generalized in the discussion of FU3 using up SS2's profits. I went ahead and removed the line. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Need citations immediately following direct quotes. I only tagged one such spot of several
  • I've never encountered this in 8 years at FAC, right up through last month's Thief II. Guideline link? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the next few days were spent finding out how many people [were] quitting." this is abrupt. Why were they quitting? The prior complaints seem limited to retrospection post-release, not immediately after going gold
  • Not sure what you mean. The section clearly details struggles during development. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikilink going gold as jargon
  • Is this really the best screenshot available? I feel like it doesn't tell me much about the game unless this is the usual view...
  • I've been wondering when someone would bring it up. That's an awful image left over from the article's original form, before I revamped it. I've never played and don't own FU3, and the screenshots available online are either lousy or watermarked, so I couldn't replace the screenshot. If you think it's a big deal, I can try to pull something together. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Add GameRankings to the reviews box, remember to only use two digits of precision, per the template
  • As I said to PresN, it needs to be in the prose for that sentence to work. Adding it to the template as well is just redundant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed a lot of ", because" instances—something to watch in the future as the pauses didn't make sense
  • Not sure what you mean, and your "due to" replacements were ungrammatical, so I've reinstated most of the uses of "because". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] → ... per MOS:ELLIPSIS
  • Wikilink frame rate
  • The Reception is a little dry and disparate. It could be improved by aggregating the common ideas behind the reviews into a single sentence
  • Those sentences are common, but they're blatant original research. I omitted them for that reason. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise the prose is in great shape

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do an image review. (Perhaps take a look at their FURs first and clean 'em up?) I'm also looking for feedback on the Fez FAC, for those interested. czar  17:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know the first thing about writing a FUR. The ones present look fine to me. Anyway, @Czar: I responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
For import/porting: Import and export of data. Citations immediately following quotes comes from WP:MINREF (part of the good article baseline criteria). Re: "finding out how many people", the section details the individual's unhappiness with the company's handling of the game—particularly post-release—so it is abrupt to hear that the staff was planning to leave even before the final word about sequels and whatnot came from the management. It just needs to be clarified in context of the rest of the section. I think the screenshot is worth recapturing—perhaps you can request one on a relevant forum? Someone is going to add GameRankings to the box eventually—the point of the box is to have easy access to the reviews. Either way, it should use two digits of precision. your "due to" replacements were ungrammatical, so I've reinstated most of the uses of "because": could you explain why? The "comma because" appear to make much less sense. I could understand removing it because it misrepresents the source, otherwise... Frame rate still needs wikilink. Aggregating sources that say the same thing into one sentence is not original research any more than having those same sentences from multiple sources spelled out in succession. The FUR on the screenshot should be expanded upon, but that will change anyway if it's being replaced. czar  22:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
First, you misread MINREF. It says that "direct quotations" should be sourced. That is the case in this article: Peter James's quotes are cited at the end of the paragraph, because all of that material is from one source. Second, all of the material from James relates to pre-release marketing, management and team morale; he left almost immediately after the game's release. His claim that the rest of the team left follows up on his claims about the game's rocky development. James's stray comment about his FU4 designs is the only extant source that discusses FU4 or its cancellation, to my knowledge, so I can't add anything else. Third, I'll see what I can do about a screenshot. Fourth, I removed the digits. Fifth, "due to" is interchangeable with "caused by"; "because of" is interchangeable with "on account of". Source: [4]. Your recent rewrites of the "because of" sentences are fine, barring the addition of another improper "due to" construction, which I've now fixed. Sixth, sentences that use phrases like "many reviewers thought X", even when followed by fifty citations, violate WP:WEASEL when used outside of the lead. More general phrases like "the game's X was praised" are full-on OR unless they are followed by a citation that summarizes, specifically, that "the game's X was praised". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm familiar with MINREF. The standard is to directly cite after every sentence that contains a quotation because the idea is that any sentence that can be challenged should have an immediate ref. I ran the cost/CD-ROM "because of" instance past my English rhetoric grad student colleagues, and they said that "due to" made more sense. I understand that you're generalizing from that StackExchange source, but it didn't apply in this one instance. If you want, I can run the other instances past them, but I'm sure about this one you last reverted. The "many" in "many reviewers X" example would be a weasel word since it makes a broad claim unable to be confirmed, but to say "reviewers X" without the "many" wouldn't make such a claim, as the claim would only hold to the critics cited. If it were original research to aggregate claims, we wouldn't be able to say a game received positive reviews without sourcing Metacritic, etc. However you fall on that issue, it's an extreme stance to say we cannot summarize critical opinion given current practices. About James, the issue wasn't adding something else but rephrasing to clarify that they were unhappy during development and planned to leave, and then follow with his retrospective comments. The sense of time is just wonky as is. czar  02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
#1 Again, I have eight years of experience at FAC (nine on Wikipedia in general) and I've never seen anyone required to use citations in this way. Not even the four most recent VG FAs (Secret of Mana, Thief II: The Metal Age, Lost Luggage and Development of Grand Theft Auto V) follow the rule. Further, MINREF itself does not actually say what you claim it says. The discussion you linked is also completely inconclusive: it features one guy who shares your opinion, one who shares mine and a third who suggests following guy 1 to save time. This is clearly a case of personal preference rather than guidelines or policies, so I'm going to leave the article as-is on this count. #2 Regarding "due to", you're still using it improperly. Let me cite more sources.
  • Grammar Girl, "[I]f you find yourself agreeing with traditionalists—or if your writing will be judged by one—use 'due to' if you can substitute 'attributable to,' 'caused by,' or 'resulting from.'"
  • BBC Manual of Style, "This means caused by, not because of."
  • Economist Style Guide, "When used to mean caused by, due to must follow a noun, as in The cancellation, due to rain, of... Do not write It was cancelled due to rain. If you mean because of and for some reason are reluctant to say it, you probably want owing to. It was cancelled owing to rain is all right."
#3 "Reviewers" is still a weasel word when used beyond the lead section. Again, see WP:WEASEL, which offers the words "scholars" and "experts" as examples. A generalized word like "reviewers" is acceptable only when it "accurately represent the opinions of the source" (bold italics in the original), i.e. when the source itself refers to "reviewers" as a whole. And yes, it is original research to say that "X received positive reviews" unless that claim is backed up directly by a source (such as Metacritic or GameRankings). This is not at all extreme. #4 I tried to address the timeline issue. See what you think. #5 I'll see what I can do about the screenshot, but it might be a few days before I get any bites on the relevant forums. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: New screenshot in place. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Beaune Altarpiece[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I get the point re positioning, but might need help from you sourcing it, esp considering you wrote the artice on Doom paintings. Ceoil (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Can do that, over the w/e. Not sure about the last part though, but it will be somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, JB - interesting addition. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I might do more later. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
have found a source on this, will be able to add tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "It is not known why he decided to build in eastern France rather than in the Low Countries, although it is likely that it was in a gesture intended to heal wounds between the Burgundians and the French" - this doesn't seem a mystery to me. Rolin was not a Netherlander at all, but came from Autun, 50 kilometres from Beaune, which is in the middle of Burgundy proper - surely Burgundian territory at the time? And just down the road from Champmol outside Dijon (actual capital of Burgundy), where the dukes were buried. I don't see how the French came into it. Also his mother remarried a Beaune man, & may have been buried there. Jan van Eyck's Madonna of Chancellor Rolin likewise was given to a church he rebuilt in Autun and shows a hilly local landscape. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I sort of slapped that in from a previous version during my lunch break today and meant to come back this evening to work on it. I think it's important to mention where Beaune is, as Cas says. We did at one point have a piece explaining about Autun, which I snipped out, but tried to find earlier and am about to search again now. In my mind, the issue is how much information to give for the lay reader who hasn't a clue who Philip of Rolin or any of these people were, and what to us seems too much or plain wrong. Anyway, thanks for mentioning it. Victoria (tk) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I've trimmed this down a bit again - there's a lot about the hospice in the sources which I think should go to that article. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Now "It is not known why he decided to build in eastern France rather than in his birth-place of Autun; although Philip kept a residence in Beaune, the Burgundians assembled there,...." plus a point about Beune lacking a hospital. But while Beaune was in "eastern France" in the sense of the Kingdom of France, it was Burgundian territory at the time - in fact geographically almost dead centre of the core Duchy of Burgundy (map, handily as at just the right date). What is the force of the "although"? - not clear. If the political machinations of 50 years before were a factor in the choice of locatuion, it needs more explaining. Sources permitting, one might mention he chose a place at a shortish respectful difference from the planned burial-place of his old master (d. 5 years later, in 1467) in Champmol/Dijon, and at his mother's last home (don't know anything about her later life - had she needed a hospital perhaps?). Johnbod (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Sorry, that was poorly done. I've tried again. According to Richard Vaughan's biography of Philip the Good, the conditions in Beaune really were dreadful in the last years of the 1430s and early 1440s, which Blum emphasizes as well (I've attributed to her for now). I've rejigged, put back pieces I'd previously trimmed, and tried to clarify more. I will re-read to see if any of the sources mention the other points you bring up - respectful place from Dijon and mother. But it does seem that impetus was the ravages by the écorcheurs followed by an outbreak of the plague. I'll come back to it later: trying to decide how much to add re the hatred between France and Burgundy - very big can of worms! Anyway, hope this helps for now. Victoria (tk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to be picky but "Beaune's proximity to the ducal holding in the Low Countries made it politically important" also seems odd. Philip's only "principal" residence in Burgundy proper (out of 5 Vaughan lists, p.136) was at Dijon (still there, see Palace of the Dukes of Burgundy), which is closer to the northern territories than Beaune. He can't have spent much time at any house in Beaune. One of the big problems, and political constraints, for the Burgundian dukes was getting themselves and others between their northern and southern territories, across potentially hostile territories ruled by others. It was a long way, and must have been over a week's journey even for a party travelling light - no doubt Vaughan has figures somewhere. In fact Philip spent most of his time in the north, where most of the money, military and art were. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried again. Victoria (tk) 18:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Heaven is represented by a gate leading to a cathedral" - do we know this? Whose cathedral could it be? Surely it is the Heavenly City" - suggest "Heaven is represented by an entrance to the Heavenly City, which is in a contemporary Gothic style." The architecture doesn't seem specifically ecclesistical, with no statues of saints or angels, as many similar heavenly structures in EN paintings have. Gothic palaces, almost all now vanished, look just the same. What do the sources say? Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sources say it looks like the entrance to the hospice. I thought we had that in the hospital? If not, will put it back or use your wording. Victoria (tk) 23:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support all points addressed; thanks for the quick response. Nice piece, one of a fine series. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Johnbod! Victoria (tk) 14:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Weyden-beaune-achterkant.jpg: source link not working. Same with /File:Weyden-JudiciFinal-closeddreta.jpg
  • File:Patients_of_the_Hotel-Dieu.jpg needs US PD tag, as does File:Beaune_Altarpiece_detail.jpg
  • File:Autun_St_Lazare_Tympanon.jpg: since there is no freedom of panorama in France, we need to account for the licensing status of the original work as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nikki! I've fixed the source links and the tags. Re File:Autun_St_Lazare_Tympanon.jpg - I understand the no freedom of panaroma but don't understand the bit about licensing the status of original work, which is 800 years old. Is this an image we can claim a FUR for? It would be nice to keep it. Victoria (tk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course we can keep it, we just need to throw in a PD template indicating that the original work is now in the public domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the file a bit, but don't know which PD template to use for this, so leaving it to Ceoil to figure out (or maybe Johnbod can point me in the right direction. Victoria (tk) 19:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I never understand these and Commons is completely useless at helping you find the right one. Johnbod (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I've done some copyediting but most of it was gilding the, ah, er, lily. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, for the support, and for taking the time to read through and make the edits. Very nice changes. Victoria (tk) 21:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support looks good - only little things I'd do are use som descriptors to locate Beaune (French city, city in eastern France, whatever) and descriptors for Blum and Panofsky. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Cas! I've retrieved a previously snipped bit (strangely, yesterday was thinking I'd been a little aggressive with the pruning shears) to explain a bit more about Beaune. Re the art historians, generally we let them stand on their own merits, but Ceoil should decide on that point. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I don't suppose all my hole picking and whining counts for much unless I support this after you've fixed it all up. (If there's some hidden rule for FAC supporters that says they must have been here for a year or have 20 billion edits or be able to jump over a cow without a run-up then I guess you can disqualify this support; I'm going to go out and try jumping over a cow in a minute, so if that is the rule, you might want to hold off striking my support until I report back). Belle (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I can't do it. Belle (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
You can't do what? Jump over a cow? Thanks for the support and your sharp eyes. Here are your comments, for the delegates to see that you really made us work hard! I think you have enough respect and skill as a reviewer to be entering the fray at FAC and this is a place where your skills are needed. Victoria (tk) 16:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I'll just clarify that I did mean that I couldn't jump over a cow (to be honest it looked quite angry, so I didn't even try). I think that's more important for the delegates (sounds like it's some secret society; don't disappoint me by revealing the truth, I'm imagining golden sickles, chanting and flowing robes) to know than anything about how I went through the article and annoyed everybody with nit-picking. I'm scared to even try jumping over a cow. There, I said it. Shun me if you want, I don't care any more. Belle (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
your picking and whining on talk was most appreciated. Carry on. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. It's very nicely written, interesting to read, seems comprehensive and it looks great. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks SV, for reading and for the support. Victoria (tk) 23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, and for helping with the image placements. Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I am embarrassed to say that I was in the Hospices de Beaune last month but have no recollection of seeing this altarpiece. Had I read this fine article beforehand I should have made certain to seek it out. The text is evidently comprehensive, and is clear, well balanced and fully and widely referenced; the images are magnificent. Manifestly of FA standard in my view. – Tim riley talk 11:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Tim! Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
From me too! Victoria (tk) 15:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Stroma, Scotland[edit]

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

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

Image review

  • File:Flag_of_Scotland.svg: source link is dead
  • File:Lymphad3.svg: licensing for both source images appears incorrect - the uploaders do not hold copyright to this design. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm puzzled about this one. They're self-created images; what licence should be used instead? Prioryman (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport on comprehnsiveness and prose. looking good - queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Due to its proximity to the Scottish mainland, Stroma has long been united with Caithness - certainly not united geographically! alternately, "has close ties with..." or something?
No, that doesn't really work - it should be politically united (as the intro says). Orkney has always been a separate domain. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
100 yards (91 m) inland - i think I'd make that "100 yards (90 m) inland" as it is not exactly 100 yards meant....
OK, i"ve made that change. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
can we link or explain "butt" and "ben"?
Good idea, I've added a footnote. It's the first time I've used that particular template; could you please check to confirm I've done it right? Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
yeah looks fine - I've used a different template but this is ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
descriptors for Bella Bathurst?
OK, added. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
.. which discontinued any interest in serving the island - I think they'd "discontinue serving the island" or "ceased any interest in serving the island"
How about "abandoned"? Thematically it goes quite nicely with the abandonment of Stroma itself. Prioryman (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Works for me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from CorinneSD[edit]

1) In the first sentence in the lead, I suggest changing "of the Scottish mainland" to "of the mainland of Scotland". I think using the name of the country rather than the adjective helps readers mentally locate the island (even though "Scotland" is in the article title).

2) At the beginning of the second paragraph in the lead, I suggest changing "The low-lying island" to "This low-lying island". It is referring to an island just named and discussed.

3) I suggest changing the wording of the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead from:

"This low-lying island was inhabited from prehistoric times to 1962, when the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it for new homes on the mainland"
"This low-lying island was inhabited from prehistoric times until the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it for new homes on the mainland in 1962".
The reason for my suggested rewording is that the action of abandoning the island conceptually balances the phrase "was inhabited from prehistoric times" -- that is, it creates a mental image of the span of human activity -- and is more interesting than a date. To make the sentence even more powerful, you might consider taking out "for new homes on the mainland". You can explain that later. Then it would read:
"This low-lying island was inhabited from prehistoric times until the last of its permanent inhabitants abandoned it in 1962".
This is the kind of sentence that will make readers wonder why they abandoned it and continue reading. It gives sufficient information but not all the information.

3) Later in that paragraph is the following sentence:

"Stroma has been united politically with the mainland region of Caithness since at least the 15th century".
I would change "united politically" to "politically united".
I'm not sure that the phrase "the mainland region of" is necessary. You already mentioned Caithness in the first paragraph and it is implied in that sentence, "between the Orkney Islands and Caithness", that it is on the mainland of Scotland. There is also a link at Caithness. The sentence would be leaner without that phrase. Lean sentences often have more power.

4) In the next sentence, "Although it lies only a few miles off the Scottish coast,...", the pronoun "it" is slightly ambiguous. The reader has to stop for a second and realize that something that lies off a coast must be the island Stroma rather than the region Caithness. You might consider using "Stroma" instead of "it".

5) In this sentence:

"They were largely self-sufficient, by necessity, trading agricultural produce and fish with the mainlanders",
"They" also has potential for ambiguity (there are two plural nouns in the previous sentence). I suggest combining the two sentences as follows:
"Although Stroma lies only a few miles off the Scottish coast, the savage weather and ferociously strong tides of the Pentland Firth meant that the island's inhabitants were very isolated, causing them to be largely self-sufficient, trading agricultural produce and fish with the mainlanders."
(I would leave out "by necessity".)

6) In this sentence:

"Most of the islanders were fishermen and crofters, with some also working as maritime pilots to guide vessels through the treacherous waters of the Pentland Firth",
I don't like the sound of "with some also working..." following a sentence where the verb is BE. I suggest changing the preposition phrase to a verb phrase:
"Most of the islanders were fishermen and crofters; some also worked as maritime pilots to guide vessels through the treacherous waters of the Pentland Firth".
The prepositional phrase "with..." minimizes the work of maritime pilots. Using an active verb phrase elevates it to an important occupation. You also have a "with" phrase shortly after this.

7) In the first paragraph of the section Stroma, Scotland# Geography, geology, flora and fauna, I see "north-west" and "south-east". I thought "northwest" and "southeast" were each one word.

8) In that same sentence,

"Stroma is located in the Pentland Firth about 2 miles (3.2 km) north-west of John o' Groats on the mainland, dividing the firth into two channels (the Inner Sound to the south, and the Outer Sound to the north),"
I would change:
"..., dividing the firth into two channels..." to:
"and divides the firth into two channels".
This makes it clear that it is Stroma, and not either the Pentland Firth or John o' Groats, that divides the firth into two channels.
Also, I would delete the parentheses around "the Inner Sound to the south, and the Outer Sound to the north" and use a comma: "...and divides the firth into two channels, the Inner Sound to the south and the Outer Sound to the north" (no comma in the middle).

9) In the first sentence of the second paragraph in Stroma, Scotland# Geography, geology, flora and fauna,

"The island is ringed by cliffs, varying in height from around 33 m (108 ft) on the west coast to low cliffs with a narrow rocky foreshore elsewhere",
I would change:
"The island is ringed by cliffs, varying in height..." to:
"The island is ringed by cliffs that vary in height..."
The verb is more direct and powerful than the participle.

10) The first sentence of the fourth paragraph of this section reads:

" The heavily indented coastline has a circumference of about 7 miles (11 km), indented by numerous geos or inlets produced by the cliffs being eroded along fault lines by the sea".
I suggest changing "produced by the cliffs being eroded along fault lines by the sea" to:
"produced when the cliffs by the sea are eroded along fault lines".

11) In the following sentence:

"It is located at the junction of the two fault lines and is connected by the sea by a subterranean passage 165 yd (151 m) long, created by erosion along the east-north-east fault",
I think it should be "and is connected to the sea", not "by the sea".

12) In the following sentence:

"It is said to have been used by islanders for smuggling and to conceal illegal distilling from HM Customs and Excise by hiding the stills and alcohol in a cave within the Gloup, called "the Malt Barn", which was only accessible at low tide",
I think you need to clarify "it". It's the subterranean passage, not the cave. You can say, "This passage".
I would remove the comma after "within the Gloup".

13) In the following sentence:

"The flora and fauna of Stroma is similar to that of the mainland",
I think the verb should be "are" since you have a plural subject, and "that" should be changed to "those":
"The flora and fauna of Stroma are similar to those of the mainland."

14) Regarding this sentence:

"The island is entirely treeless, its vegetation consisting primarily of grasses, heather and small flowers",
you might consider the following rewording:
"The island is treeless; its vegetation consists primarily of grasses, heather and small flowers".
If something is treeless, it has no trees, so "entirely" is unnecessary. Saying that an island or area is treeless -- just that, treeless -- creates a stunning image. I also think using the participle "consisting", minimizes the information that follows it. The verb is more descriptive.

15) In the section Stroma, Scotland#Demographics is the following sentence:

"They originally belonged to two different estates; the Freswick estate owned Nethertown, while the Mey estate owned Uppertown".
I suggest rewording as follows:
The settlements originally belonged to two different estates: the Freswick estate owned Nethertown and the Mey estate owned Uppertown".
I just don't think subordination is necessary here.

16) In the second paragraph in the subsection under History Stroma, Scotland#Prehistoric settlement and remains, there is a sentence that reads:

"They are located near midden, out of which animal bones and shells are eroding."
I wonder if you could add an adverb before "located" that would indicate the frequency:
  • always
  • often
  • usually
  • sometimes

17) The very next sentence is:

"Little appears to be known about their purpose and origins."

This sentence, with the possessive adjective "their", is getting pretty far away from the antecedent. You've also got several plural nouns between "their" and the antecedent. The next sentence also refers to "them" and "they". I suggest reminding the reader of the subject:

"Little appears to be known about the purpose and origins of these structures".

That's all I can do right now. CorinneSD (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

18) In the middle of the third paragraph in the section Stroma, Scotland#Life on Stroma: 17th and 18th centuries is the following sentence:

"The latter acquired Nethertown in 1721 and eventually also took possession of Uppertown as well by obtaining the wadset from the Kennedies, reportedly through skullduggery."
(a) You don't need both "also" and "as well". I would remove one. I think "as well" sounds better than "also" here.
(b) I've never seen a name that ends in "y", like "Kennedy", made into plural by changing the "y" to "i" and adding "es", as in study-studies. I think it should be "Kennedys", or "the Kennedy family".

19) In the fourth paragraph in the section Stroma, Scotland#19th and 20th centuries is the following sentence:

" As many as 560 vessels have had to be refloated in the Pentland Firth between 1830 and 1990 after getting into difficulties."

Because of the finite period 1830 to 1990, present perfect tense is incorrect for the verb: "have had". I see two ways to fix this:

1) Change "have had" to past tense: "had". The only problem with this is that it leaves out the idea that vessels may have continued to have to be refloated since 1990.
2) Reword the sentence as follows, keeping the present perfect tense:
"Many vessels -- as many as 560 between 1830 and 1990 -- have had to be refloated in the Pentland Firth after getting into difficulties."
(Use en-dashes; I don't know how to put en-dashes here.) That way, you keep the present perfect tense, indicating that it is a continuing circumstance, but you also are able to give a figure for a specific period. CorinneSD (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

1850 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • "lost to a Smithsonian Institution fire" – wording niggles slightly: "in a..." seems more usual in this context.
  • I would delete the unnecessary words "additionally" and "highly"
  • "compromised" is an odd choice of word, meaning damaged or destroyed. "Downed" is used later on.
  • "multiple coaster vessels wrecked along the coast" → "were wrecked".
  • "far northern" – as a single adjective, possibly hyphenate?
  • "a hurricane was felt upwind" – I'm not familiar with hurricanespeak, but "felt" seems strange here. Also: suggest you delete "also" later in the same sentence.
  • "450 ft (150 yds) long and 60 ft (20 yds) high". The parentheses should give metric equivalents, not alternative imperial measures.
  • Everyday speech, e.g. "much damage", should not be in quotes.
  • What as the Osceola?
  • "precipitation" – why not "rain"?
  • The June/July "other storms" should receive a brief mention in the lead, since you have awarded them a short section in the main article
    Well, that's where the Fragmented records... line comes in, but I can flesh that out a bit if necessary. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Sources review
  • Refs 3, 6, 19, 23, 27: the linked pages do not state the source
    Completely willing to make necessary changes here, but I'm a bit confused to what you mean. The director of earth sciences (or some equally reputable title) at the university published accounts of the storm incorporating some info from David Ludlum's research, and he's listed as the |author= where appropriate. If the webpages aren't reliable enough, I could probably reduce the info to be in-line with Ludlum's book only. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Ref 5: how does the data on the linked page support the statement cited to it?
    Replaced it with a more accessible source to be safe. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Refs 21 and 22 appear to be showing each other's source: 21 is NOAA, 22 is NWS
    Couldn't quite see the issue but I tinkered with ref 22 to try to make it more clear. They're both broadly NWS and NOAA, but I try to list whichever parent agencies are more applicable in the citation data. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

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

I've implemented most of your suggestions, and have just a few questions about some of your sourcing concerns. Replies above. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've checked the edits since I last copyedited this. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for the edits! – Juliancolton | Talk 19:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Briarcliff Manor, New York[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by URDNEXT[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by Miniapolis[edit]

My review focuses primarily on the prose.

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

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

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

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

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

Miniapolis, for such a long article, I'd assume that there would be minor problems that we'd have to dig to find. I have already had a number of people review it and OK it. A peer review wouldn't give me that much more. You should read my further comments to Ian Rose (here), who agreed with me and was willing to allow me to immediately reopen the FA review. With regard to neutrality, I would like you to cite examples. I believe that all facts are neutral, factual, and encyclopedic. The village has not published or commissioned many of my sources; quite a number of them come from the independent Briarcliff Manor-Scarborough Historical Society, which is a professional and respected organization for research. With regard to a "numbing amount of detail", this is an online encyclopedia. There is no limit on the amount of detail we can go into. The only real issue with great detail is it increases page size, which can be fixed other ways. Readers and Wikipedians generally want the most detail possible in such specific articles.--ɱ (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
By far my largest source was The Changing Landscape, an independently-published and independently-written 300-page volume detailing village history and other aspects. It makes no attempts to be promotional.--ɱ (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Miniapolis: As well, if you read Ian Rose's talk page, it better details that he suggested a peer review not based on the article's quality, but based on the fact that it might garner the attention of more editors. He didn't fail it for any lack of quality, merely for only one review in the month-long period, and no responses for a week after that.--ɱ (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
My comments are based on the article, which is little changed (except for some apparent reverts) from when I copyedited it at your request as a userspace draft several months ago. Pinging individuals to look over an article (what you seem to consider "peer review") is very different from a formal process by disinterested editors. Due to the recent influx of paid editors on WP attempting to "spin" articles for clients, I'm sensitive to POV. I'm requesting a source review due to possible plagiarism issues, since I found verbatim copy with inadequate attribution (with a footnote, but without quotation marks) accidentally while checking a source during the copyedit. A formal peer review would address issues such as these, but I see haste in trying to get this article to FA. Miniapolis 14:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You're overstating that paraphrasing issue, and that was an odd case very early on in this article's development. I'm surprised you don't notice more changes; I've rewritten entire sections, added many images and quite a lot of content, and done quite a bit of formatting since you last reviewed it. I would say it has dramatically changed since you last reviewed it. I am very familiar with the PR process, and I should let you know that of the many that have reviewed the article and draft, none of them had any relation to the content. Most of them made a note to tell me that they've never heard of, or have never lived remotely close to the place. All of my reviewers have been more than critical as well, and none have found this 'vague promotionalism' that you speak of.--ɱ (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisPond[edit]

Support. I've previously reviewed a draft of this article, and provided ɱ with some comments to improve it. That said, I agree that the article is quite long. I don't believe that it's too long to qualify as a featured article, and I have no readily apparent solutions to shortening it, but would certainly not be opposed to be the article being a bit shorter if other editors have suggestions to make it so. ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 00:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

Comments from AmericanLemming[edit]

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

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

Overdose Apologies for my weeklong absence. Hopefully I'll be able to do a section a week; I might try to do two or three over Labor Day weekend. We'll see; my classes may get in the way of that. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  • “An amphetamine overdose can lead to many different symptoms, but is rarely fatal with appropriate care.” What is “appropriate care”, exactly?
That was a language an author used to mean medical intervention at a hospital. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • “High or low blood pressure” How can a moderate overdose cause “high or low blood pressure”? I sense a note in the making.
There's several cases where it can cause an elevation or reduction in some measure, e.g., blood pressure, pulse, and blood potassium levels. It depends upon the dose and initial conditions of the user. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • When we talk about “moderate overdoses” and “extremely large overdoses”, could we give the approximate range for each?
Per WP:MEDMOS, I couldn't specify the range (this is indicated in a note in the source code), so I resorted to using those terms to give a relative magnitude for the range. The range is actually somewhat variable depending upon the user's tolerance as well, so it would've been hard to specify it in any case. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • I don’t normally cite WP:SEAOFBLUE, but it seems to apply to the “extremely large overdose” sentence. You have no less than 16 blue links in a row. Can we find some way to reduce that number? Maybe only link the most unfamiliar ones? How else am I as the reader supposed to know what to click on? All of them? Maybe split them up into more common and less common symptoms?
The longest chain after my last edit is 6 comma separated blue links in a row. Let me know if you think it needs more revision. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • Also, define metabolic acidosis, respiratory alkalosis, serotonin toxidrome, and sympathomimetic toxidrome in parentheses.
Done for three of these... I'll do the 4th once I can check the ref for more details. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained)
  • Alright, one more comment on that sentence. How can the blood’s pH be too high and too low at the same time (respiratory alkalosis and metabolic acidosis, respectively)? Does this call for another note? AmericanLemming (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I need to drop by my university library to check the book ref before I clarify this.
Ok, so apparently the ref for metabolic acidosis and respiratory alkalosis is this one (corresponds to the ref named "Acute amph toxicity" in the source code). Per this ref, the two can occur together. I'm not sure the relationship between metabolic acidosis and respiratory alkalosis can be easily explained in non-technical terms though; the parenthetical explanation for respiratory alkalosis is also a little more technical than that term (reduced partial pressure of blood carbon dioxide) as well. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 18:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've been a little busier than I expected this past week, so I haven't worked on these issues yet. Sorry about that Face-smile.svg I'll get to this tomorrow since I've got some free time available now. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

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

Comments from Axl[edit]

  • From the lead section, paragraph 1: "Based upon the quantity of seized and confiscated drugs and drug precursors worldwide, illicit amphetamine production and trafficking is much less prevalent than that of methamphetamine; however, in some parts of Europe, amphetamine is more prevalent than methamphetamine." It is unclear to me why the lead section specifically draws a comparison with the prevalence of methamphetamine. This comparison is only helpful if the reader already has an idea of the usage of methamphetamine. (I certainly don't know that.) Why not mention cannabis, MDMA, or cocaine? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
@Axl:The lead statement was a summary of Amphetamine#History, society, and culture, specifically the statements "Amphetamine is still illegally synthesized today in clandestine labs and sold on the black market, primarily in European countries.[23] Outside Europe, the illicit market for amphetamine is much smaller than the market for methamphetamine.[23]" The comparison to meth in that section was included for two reasons: the first is the amalgamation of amphetamine and methamphetamine's society and culture sections into the history and culture of substituted amphetamines article (they have a fair amount of overlapping historical/sociocultural aspects, hence the merge). The second reason is that amphetamine, MDMA, and methamphetamine were grouped together in a very large section with detailed analysis/comparison in the World Drug Report ref, e.g., see pages 123-135(they share very similar synthesis methods and precursor compounds). Cocaine/cannabis were covered in different sections with no comparisons to amphetamine-type stimulants. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to mention: MDMA was also included in the lead comparison a while ago, but Exercisephys removed it. The illicit production of MDMA is much less prevalent than amphetamine/methamphetamine production though (it's harder to make and the precursors are more difficult to acquire than amph/meth). I can re-add it to the lead and body if you think it's worth including. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that it is helpful to the reader to include a comparison with methamphetamine and/or MDMA in the lead section. It would be far more useful to indicate how many people use amphetamine illegally. This source might be helpful. Perhaps you could provide some sort of ranking among the illicit drugs (in terms of prevalence of use)? Also, there should be an indication somewhere in the article of the amount of money (street value?) of amphetamine sold per year.
All of this information doesn't necessarily need to be in the lead section, but it certainly should be in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Per your suggestion, I've added the usage statistics of "amphetamines" (amph/meth) over the past year in the EU member states. Since price for amph varies locally in the EU (6-38 euros/g), I used the total confiscated mass instead of total average street value. Diff Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you rounded 0.9% up to "roughly 1%". Otherwise, the information that you have added is helpful. However that source has more information available. It includes an estimate of price (either €6–38 or €9–23 per gram) and variation in purity. Ideally, I would like to see an estimate of total usage rather than seizure. Also, I would like to see a ranking of prevalence among the other illicit drugs.
I note that you did not remove the comparison with methamphetamine from the lead section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - Better? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 19:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you! Although I am a little surprised that the source separates opiates from opioids. My understanding is that opiates are directly derived from opium, while opioids also include the synthetic/semi-synthetic drugs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Presently, it is typically prescribed as Adderall." "Presently" is often used to mean "Soon". Perhaps "Currently" would be better? Also, "it" could be inferred to mean "Benzedrine" on the basis of the preceding sentence. It may be better to spell out "pharmaceutical amphetamine". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Long-term amphetamine exposure in some animal species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage, but, in individuals with ADHD, stimulants appear to improve brain development and nerve growth." The term "stimulants" is rather vague. Perhaps change this to "amphetamine" or "stimulants such as amphetamine"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - this is more or less how it was written a week or two ago. Lots of edits to this section recently. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 11:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't help. What are "ADHD stimulants"? These could be inferred to mean environmental factors that provoke ADHD. Actually, on second thoughts, my second suggestion would be better as "stimulant drugs such as amphetamine". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Diff - this better? Little more succinct. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 1: "Magnetic resonance imaging studies suggest that long-term treatment with amphetamine ... improves function of the right caudate nucleus and other parts of the brain involved in dopamine transmission." I am not sure that "involved in dopamine transmission" is the best phrase. This seems to imply that dopamine transmission is an aim in itself. How about "that utilize dopamine transmission". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I figured it might be simpler to just word it like this: Diff. How's that look? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Support; haven't read through it in detail but everything looks to be in order. I suppose if I had one complaint, it'd be that the page is unclear at points as to what specifically amphetamine is, but that can be explained by the ambiguity of the term in common use as mentioned in the intro, so I don't have a problem with it. Tezero (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Æthelwold ætheling[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support -- Recusing myself from coord duties here, like Tim I had my say (and tweaked some prose) at the A-Class Review. Having reviewed changes since then I'm happy to support for FA as well. Just one thing, I believe you're no longer citing Abels (2007) and Williams (1991a) -- which I noticed thanks to Ucucha's Harv error script -- so they should be removed from the reference list, or at least transferred to a Further Reading section. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Images - Only two, no issues. Graham Colm (talk) 10:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm - User:Nikkimaria checked images at A-Class and queried the lack of a source for the map, so I replaced it with an old one. User:P. S. Burton has now kindly replaced the old map with a better one. This is a derivative of a map which is based on one of 1910. I have added the source information to the new map, and hope this is now OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Ian and Graham. I have removed the sources no longer used. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I see this already has three supports, so I'll just note that I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer two months ago, and I made one small change (ground -> grounds). These are my edits. One "restrictive which" has been added since June; I don't generally put up a fight over those, but someone else might. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to "Lavelle suggests that opposition came from the descendants of the faction which had sided with Edward at the Battle of the Holme". I have not come across the "restrictive which" before, but there is an interesting discussion here. As "which" sounds better to me, and many first rate writers use it in the same way, I would prefer to keep it. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dank. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Madman's Drum[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images are fair use but appear to be appropriately justified, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

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

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

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Through a period of four weeks I have worked on the article and expanded it from this to what it looks today. I found a decent amount of information which I placed within the article page. I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I hope the prose is good since I'm not a native English speaker. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you, Earthh (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • I think "arena rock" should also go in the genre field per the source; listening to it, simply "experimental rock" really doesn't do it justice. It's a rather mainstream song.
  • The term "arena rock" doesn't really indicate a music genre. It is rather an influence or tendency which is primarily related to touring, as the article arena rock states.
  • "It was engineered by Jamie Reed Schefman and mixed by Serban Ghenea. The song was engineered for mix by John Hanes at Mixstar Studios in Virginia Beach, Virginia." - Wait, what? Which is it?
  • That's what the liner notes say [5].
  • "the oldest song created by the band" - on LLFD or over their whole career? Jared Leto's a busy guy.
  • Clarified.
  • I'm kinda uneasy about the organization of info into Background and Composition; there's stuff about the song being an ode to LA in both sections. The first sentence in the second paragraph of Background is pushing it; the rest of that paragraph totally fits more with what's in Composition.
  • The info which I put into Background are related to the recording and the inspiration behind the song; I changed its title to Recording and inspiration.
  • I was still uneasy at first, but I think you've improved it sufficiently. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, within Composition the focus seems to carom back and forth between musical composition and themes. I'd organize it along those two tenets.
  • Fixed and reorganized. I also renamed it Composition and theme.
  • "general acclaim" - kind of an oxymoron. I'd prefer "a generally positive response", "critical acclaim", or something in between like "very positive reviews".
  • Fixed.
  • Another organizational gripe: It talks about the music video's themes in the second paragraphs of both Development and Release. Please reorganize this information somehow; as it stands it comes off as retreading old ground.
  • In second paragraph of Development there are info about people who worked on the short film and the role of Leto as director, there's nothing about the video's themes. In Release, that is the official statement by Leto at a press release for the short film.
  • "The short film begins with Kanye West associating objects and people with Los Angeles, including James Dean and Howard Hughes as well as architecture, Walt Disney and Marilyn Monroe." - What do you mean by "associating"? Is he describing their significance and relation to the city, or just gesturing to images/film clips? If the first, are there images and film clips or just Kanye? Or is he just being a gayfish?
  • He is relating them to the city. Fixed.
  • Not a requirement, but you might want to cite the video through a YouTube upload of it or something where the paragraphs end without citations, just so no one mistakenly pops in a "citation needed" tag later.
  • Where? In synopsis?
  • ""City of Angels" was included in the Carnivores Tour, co-headlining with Linkin Park, usually appearing approximately halfway through the set." - Did the song include Linkin Park as a guest or something, did other parts of the 30 Seconds concerts include them, or was Linkin Park just another artist on the same tour? Ambiguous syntax.
  • Linkin Park was another artist on the tour. Fixed.

Tezero (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Tezero. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. It's not often that an article passes FAC without a prior GAN, but I believe this is one of those that deservedly could. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

  • The second sentence could be split. The two clauses discuss unrelated topics–production and lyrics.
  • the third sentence is grammatically wrong. It should be either "as well as music from the 1980s" or "music from the 1980s as well", but not the way it is now.
  • a song can be broadcast on radio; "service" is not the correct verb
  • it received acclaim (only) from music critics; critical is redundant, thought I'd prefer "was acclaimed by music critics"
  • hailed→praised; "of the track" is extra;
  • you need to specify which were the nations, or if you don't want, write international charts.
  • "parent" is not needed
  • a song can be performed on a tour, or included in the set (not in the band's tour).
Recording and inspiration
  • it is useful to note who Jared Leto is (the frontman I guess)
  • describing Steve Lillywhite as previous collaborator is vague. In this state, it's logical to question myself: 'They collaborated on what?' 'What is Lillywhite's proffesion?'
  • are you using "mix" as a verb or noun? it can be "for a mix" or "to mix", not for mix.
  • shorten preview event to "preview" only
  • you can paraphrase "took a long, long time to make" to took a long time to make
Composition and theme
  • Do both references support the opening sentence, or is the sentence a combination of both? If the second, it consist synthesis of material.
  • does synthesizers need to be in quote marks? it indicates scare quotes in a certain way
  • followed by the sound of drum beats–followed by drum beats would be fine
  • Loudwire should be italicized
  • generally, this section overlaps with the 'Critical reception'. If you are writing about the song structure/melody/composition, it should be stated as fact, not opinion.
  • distributed would be a luckier solution for 'sent'
  • since iTunes and Amazon are established brands, I think "online digital media" can be easily dropped
  • what is iTunes Stone?
  • you meant debuted/premiered instead of "impacted", right?
Critical reception
  • the same note as the intro (was acclaimed)
  • every sentence here has, regardless the length, a quote. For the purpose of comprehensiveness, I suggest quoting only essential remarks, and paraphrasing what can be done to avoid WP:QUOTEFARM reading.
Live performances
  • became a signature part in what way? If you're indicating that it was frequently performed, then a "set-fixture" would be more adequate
  • Since Thirty Seconds to Mars is an American band, you need to use favorable instead of favourably.
  • is the date of the 1st iHeartRadio Music Awards really needed here?
  • awards ceremony–omit awards since we already know that iHeartRadio are music awards
  • who were stationed (or positioned), I assume. Same for a highlight
  • again, a song can be featured or performed on a tour, not included.
Thanks for your comments, I will address them in a week since I'm not at home - I'm editing from my mobile phone.--Earthh (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Y2kcrazyjoker4[edit]

Oppose - I have to dispute the song being "critically acclaimed". The reception section seems to omit any negative reviews or criticisms the song received, of which there are several:

  • Drowned in Sound says: "Third song 'City Of Angels' is the nadir; a limp, soulless slab of soft-rock that even Gutterflower era Goo Goo Dolls would consider toothless."
  • AltSounds says: "Not to be different or anything, but 'City of Angels' is by far my least favorite song - it's just trying too hard to be stadium level epic and whilst it actually kind of achieves it, I again am reminded of U2, not the early days great band, the shitty stadium band that wrote the same song over and over."
  • musicOMH says: "City Of Angles is the sort of corny ballad that makes 30 Seconds To Mars such a love-them-or-hate-them band".
  • CraveOnline says: "'City Of Angels' is one of my favorites in this salad of pretentious delights. Thirty Seconds To Mars stretch their ballad muscles here, which really means there's very little music playing when Leto begins his narrative about the quite desperation of Los Angeles. Oh good, another song about the melancholy beneath the glitz and glamour of LA. It's been forty minutes since one of these songs came out, it's about time we were served another. Who better to slice up the bitterness of being young and beautiful in LA than Leto, who is both. Attempting 'atmosphere' with clunky piano, synths and random drum strikes, Leto opens his notebook and allows more winning words to escape. For example, 'Lost in the city of angels. Down in the comfort of strangers. I found myself in the land of a billion lights'. Wow, I understand Los Angeles on a much deeper level now."

I think some of the above needs to be incorporated into the article to reflect the fact that not every critic loved the song. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 20:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Seinfeld Chronicles[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

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

I have two drive-by comments, I suppose. The first is somewhat facetious. In the "Standard classification" subsection lemmings aren't listed under the family "Cricetidae", and I think they should be (notice my username?) Anyway, I guess that doesn't really matter. On a more serious note, the "Interactions with humans" section only talks about people eating them, keeping them as pets, and using them as lab rats (literally, in some cases). There's absolutely nothing about their depiction in popular culture. Now, you don't need a whole five paragraphs about that (unless you want to put that much effort in), but the pinniped article has a nice one-paragraph summary under the Human relations section; I'd use that as a model. There is no Rodents in popular culture article, at least as far as I can tell, but just include it in a hatnote; there's nothing wrong with red links in FAs. Other than that, the article appears to be quite comprehensive. Good work! AmericanLemming (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the lemmings under Cricetidae (I hope you weren't offended!) and we will work on a paragraph or two on "Rodents in popular culture". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hold on. I decided against having a popular culture section because of how large and diverse the group is and such a section is better suited for individual groups like mice or beaver. Unlike bat or shark, there is no cultural "rodent". Pinniped is also not a good comparison as they are far less diverse and culture pretty much knows them all as "seals" (the walrus being the only species with a significant cultural identity). It would be almost like having a "Mammals in popular culture" section for Mammal or "Carnivorians in popular culture" section for Carnivora. Another FA article Primate also doesn't have a popular culture section and I believe for the same reason. LittleJerry (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your point. I was wondering whether at some point this issue had already been discussed. Well, I can't really argue with the reasons you've given for not having such a section. Also, searching "rodents in popular culture" in Google, Amazon, and JSTOR doesn't bring up anything of substance, so it would be difficult to write a paragraph on the subject. I did find "Rats-Friends or Foes" in The Journal of Popular Culture, but that would fit better in the rat article than this one. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We have made a start on drafting a short section so might as well complete it. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. That's just the sort of thing I was looking for: short and to the point. A few comments: In the first paragraph on rats, two important literary examples are missing: "The Pit and the Pendulum" by famed Gothic writer Edgar Allen Poe (rats swarm over the protagonist and try to eat him) and the children's classic Charlotte's Web by E.B. White (the gluttonous rat Templeton plays an important role in the plot.) In the second paragraph, we would be remiss not to mention that Mickey Mouse is Disney's mascot to this very day. Third, a good literary example of rats being portrayed as evil and mice being portrayed as good can be found in the late Brian Jacques' Redwall series of books (see the Characters section. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The section is all about rats and mice and not rodents. I've asked Cwmhiraeth to remove it. LittleJerry (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you position on the matter; if rats and mice are the most commonly represented rodents in popular culture, then it makes sense to focus on them. But in the case we do end up removing it, I'd suggest copying and pasting it to the lead section of the List of fictional rodents article. That way Cwmhiraeth's work doesn't go to waste and the aforementioned article gets a decent lead section (right now it's one sentence long). AmericanLemming (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I moved the text to the fictional rodents article. I hope this slight disagreement will not affect your support for the article. LittleJerry (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I think you have some very valid reasons for your position, and I respect that. As far as supporting or opposing, I don't think I've done a thorough enough review of the article to give a recommendation either way. And with school in session, I don't think I'll have time to burrow any further into the article, unfortunately. Anyway, with lemmings now mentioned in the article, my work here is done. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 04:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Emotions" section has 2 paragraphs (even though they both are addressing the same point). The first paragraph describes the theory and methodology of a cognitive test. This seems to stray away from the topic of rodents - it is a paragraph about an experiment, not about rodents. The second paragraph is about the result of how a some rats did on the test. This is only about rats - is the experiment saying this result is applicable to rodents in general or just rats (that paragraph may be better suited for the rats article)? maclean (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reply to comment. I think I introduced this section. The cognitive bias test is reasonably difficult to understand in principle and practice, and so I described it in a little detail. On reflection, this might be a little long - I was hoping to avoid the reader having to flick to another article to understand this section. The study in rats is extremely interesting because the high frequency ultrasonic call is one of the few contenders of indicating positive welfare that we are currently aware of (think of all the other indicators - they indicate negative welfare, or neutrality). Current knowledge as that only the rat emits this ultrasonic call so it is specific to rats, however, that does not mean that other rodents do not experience the same emotion/s. Remember the rat is widely used as a laboratory animal for reasons of convenience in these studies. Who knows, there might be "Happy Hamsters", "Merry Mice" and "Cheerful Chinchillas" ...but they have yet to be tested.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Lead could do with a little massaging.....
continuously growing incisors - hyphen here?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
About forty percent of all species of mammal are rodents - I don't like the singular/plural juxtaposition here...I'd go with "About forty percent of all mammal species are rodents"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
''The most diversified mammalian clade, they can be found in a variety of terrestrial habitats including human-made environments. - singular/plural subject
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Well known rodents include mice, rats, squirrels, prairie dogs, porcupines, beavers, guinea pigs, and hamsters, but rabbits, hares and pikas are no longer considered to be rodents. - two "rodents' in the one sentence
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Quite a few "rodents" in para 2 of lead - if we can pare down any of these with clever use of passive etc. that'd be good....
Reduced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
sometimes even breaching oceans - odd verb choice here....better one would be prudent
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"'Rodents interact with humans in various ways, and have been put to use as food, in clothing, as pets and as laboratory animals in research. - the facts themselves illustrate the diversity - I'd chop the bolded bit
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd link pelage, ultraviolet light. enamel, dentine, tundra, hydrological
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
''Rodents are capable of gnawing though even the toughest husks, pods and seed shells - needs a cite...also some elaboration on which species are strongest etc.
Thank you for your comments. I removed the uncited sentence, there's more about feeding later in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
First sentence of Social behavior uncited.
First part of Social behavior section a series of standalone sentences - can we congeal these into 1-2 paragraphs?
Similarly, degus, another social, burrowing rodent - plural/singular disagreement
"'Using olfaction, rodents are able to recognize close relatives. - any reason why we're not saying "by (their) smell"? as it is simpler?
This allows them to express nepotism - "express nepotism" sounds weird to me..."show nepotism"?
Several different mating systems exist among rodents. - I'd remove this as redundant.
Rodents have advanced cognitive abilities and can perform a wide range of tasks. - I think the first part of this sentence is subjective to the point of being pointless - "advanced" compared with a monotreme? probably - to a human? no. Without some context, no meaning is lost by changing to "Rodents can perform a wide range of cognitive tasks."
I have dealt with these suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It looks comprehensive overall and flows well now. I will do some source checking a bit later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Bat detectors are often used by pet owners for this purpose." - source?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "In the eusocial mole rats, a single female monopolizes mating from at least three males." - source?
Added. LittleJerry (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't include quote-initial or -terminal ellipses
I don't understand this. Can you explain? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
As you know, ellipsis is used to indicate that material from a source has been omitted when quoting. However, it is understood that you cannot possibly be quoting the entire source in this article. For that reason, having ellipses at the beginning or end of a quote, as you do for example in "...for the first time", is redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Right, I'm with you. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FN5: link goes to a different site than is cited
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Several of the refs have stray punctuation, particularly the .". string
Done, I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Formatting of FN111 does not match similar refs; same with FN113
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether periodicals include publishers
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent date formatting
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • FN116: missing italics. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for the "Source review". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

    • As I promised a while back, I'm here to help. I'd like for us to work through the images first, before I start playing with the prose. This may be a lengthy process.
  • Check captions for semi-colons where colons would work better (or, for the lead image, a comma that might be better replaced by a colon)
Done Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Source link for File:House mouse.jpg (part of your collage) is dead. Otherwise all images in that collage look fine. The collage would look better in the article as a JPG, however.
Can't find a new source link. I suppose we had better redo the collage with a different image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The link works for me. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's because we fixed it already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Same as the kangaroo rat below. You might want to do a backwards Google search. Will save you the trouble of making a new collage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
added on Commons and in article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Replaced image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I missed that he uploaded the image himself. You can reinsert the NYC rat if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:American Beaver with dam.JPG - You need to create the original author as well, not just the person who made a crop. Otherwise this violates the terms of the upload. I'd link to the source image as well, rather than forcing people to search for it.
Done (on Commons) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
We editors discussed this earlier, and preferred this image for its "town" appearance, illustrating rodent societies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing else on Commons (for that species). Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
source corrected. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Still not directing me to that image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed not, the original page seems to have been deleted. If you think this an issue we can look for another image. Done that anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you try a search-by-image on Google, limited to .gov domains? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hadn't quite gone that far! Result is [6]: but it contains the new image that's now in the article, not the original one. The original survives in a few places such as [7]. If you'd like it put back, just ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer the lighting on File:Kangaroo-rat.jpg better (much easier on the eyes, looks more professional). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
added English description on Commons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Castoroides Knight.jpg] - The book was published in 2012. How do we know that this painting was published (not completed) in 1904?
removed image from table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
removed image from table; we could possibly use it elsewhere in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
removed image from table. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Rodent species pie chart.png - Got anything more recent? This is going on ten years old, and I'm concerned that paleontological discoveries / discoveries of new extant species may have changed the balance somewhat.
removed image. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Lightened the image; Grönvold died in 1940 so it's indeed PD-70. Volumes of book were published between 1921 and 1928: if the latter, US PD is uncertain so removing for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Image has been removed from Lightmatter. Have replaced image with a user's (Rama's) own work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Potatoes feeding damage HC1.JPG - Fine
    • Now that that's done... I highly recommend removing some images. Personally, I'd take out all the extinct species from the table (you don't have illustrations for all examples, after all) and the bird drawing. Perhaps one or two more. This will both save bandwidth for people on slow connections, allow the page to load faster, and make it look less cramped. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
removed extinct species image column from table, and the bird drawing; awaiting further edits from team. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your image review Crisco. Now that we have dealt with most of your points, I'll have a go at replacing the mouse image in the collage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • See my point above re: the mouse image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
many copies (prob. from WP) but none on Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • When all else fails, and I have a once-valid URL, I like to try's Wayback Machine ( And... *drum roll* ta dah! You simply need to add the link to the file page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! I have done that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments[edit]

    • rōdere - Should be italicized as it is both a non-English word and a word as a word (WP:WORDSASWORDS)
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Antarctica - is this overlinking? (x2)
links removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • , but rabbits, hares and pikas are now considered to be in a separate order, Lagomorpha - reason for this being included is not immediately apparent. No indication in text that some people think rabbits et. al are rodents
said so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
said and linked whiskers directly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • re-ingests the food from its anus - You mean it ingests pellets, right? It doesn't commit autoanilingus, one would assume (and pass the brain bleach, please). Might want to rework this.
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Because the incisors do not stop growing, the animal must continue to wear them down so that they do not grow far enough to reach or even pierce the skull. - Repetition of "growing"
sorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • like the blade of a chisel - iron and pounded on by a hammer? Something less idiomatic would be preferable
added "shaped", which is the intended meaning here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • This lets rodents suck in their cheeks or lips to shield their mouths and throats from wood shavings or other inedible material, and discard this from the side of the mouth. - "This" last referred to the diastemata, suggesting that the second "this" is also diastemata. I'd add "waste" after the second "this".
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Rodents have also thrived in human-created environments such as agricultural and urban areas. - I wouldn't challenge this, and I don't know anyone who would, but considering your experiences at Tree I think you might agree that a citation would be useful (just to be safe)
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Prairie dogs can also lead to regional and local biodiversity loss, increased seed depredation and the establishment and spread of invasive shrubs. - A sentence like this should be contrasted with the positive roles mentioned before
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It also practices coprophagy, eating its own fecal pellets. - See, this is handled much better. Also, if you defined the term on the first mention, you wouldn't have to define it here.
rm definition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • So roughly what percent of rodents are carnivorous or omnivorous?
Unsure about this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Duplicate links: caviomorphs, fur, naked mole rat
done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's half of the text. Rest tomorrow. Very nice read. Simple enough for a literary major to understand. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the young emerge in front of their mother." - In front of their mother ... this is ambiguous. Could be "from the mother's front parts", "in their mother's presence", or "with their mother facing them". Or do you mean the direction in which the young move after being birthed?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • alien - I know what you mean, but I can also imagine someone deliberately misreading this as "extraterrestrial". Perhaps another term?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • which causes stress, thus causing the young to abort. - can we avoid the double "cause" in close succession?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • we know a great deal about their cognitive capacities. - passive voice would be better, to avoid the human subject. "much is known about their cognitive capacities", for instance
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • some of them were handled whereas others were tickled by the handlers - I feel "handled" could be better expressed. Tickling is a form of handling, IMO
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "joy" - what's with the quotes?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Similar tests on birds have been inconclusive. - at most worth a footnote. Not really pertinent to rodents
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The author has a M.S. and Ph.D. in Animal Behavior and has studied rats in depth. The site backs up its information with citations from the scientific literature. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if we could have a peer reviewed article or something instead of this. Please keep an eye out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • and up to ten re-colonizations of Eurasia. - does this mean Rodentia is thought to have first evolved in Eurasia?
Well, in Laurasia, the precursor of Eurasia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Then why "re-colonization"?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • such as the giant beavers, Castoroides, and a giant dormouse, Leithia, attained great size. - yes, we get that they were big. No need to say it three times in a single sentence. Also, you use "Giant" too much in this paragraph. I count three instances
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ceara and Sierra Leone Rises - links?
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The hares, rabbits and pikas (order Lagomorpha) have continuously growing incisors and were at one time included in the order. - since this is the first mention in the article body (as opposed to the lead), I'd link. Also, consider starting the sentence with "As with rodents," to remind people why this is important
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • based on an attempt (Wu et al., 2012) - perhaps "based on a 2012 attempt by Wu et al."
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • While these disagreements have been going on - "have continued" or "remain unsolved", perhaps? Have going on feels hopelessly non-formal
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Monophyly versus polyphyly - unless you develop this section even further, I recommend merging it with above. I have little love for one-paragraph sections
This would not fit in a section titled "Standard classification" and I think it is best left in its own subsection. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider linking species upon first mention (brown rat, black rat, etc.). You may need to review the entire article for this, as you name drop a lot of species
Done all I could manage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • they were fed walnuts, chestnuts, and acorns for fattening. - might want to rework, as your subject was "Romans", and I don't think the Romans were being fattened
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Among indigenous Amazonians, when large mammals are scarce, - I should think that there are no large mammals living in the indigenous Amazonians. "In the Amazon," perhaps
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Rodents make convenient pets where space is limited, and the different types exhibit differing qualities as pets - Pets - pets. Can we avoid this?
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Some rodent species are agricultural pests, - feels like this can be expanded. I mean, what we have there is two sentences. That's barely a paragraph
Added a whole lot more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Disease too... we all know about the plague. What about other diseases? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Added a whole lot more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice to see a bit of variety. You may be asked to trim one or two, but this looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Looks like the only thing missing is making sure the species are linked on first mention, but that's not enough for me to hold back the bold "s". Good work on such a wide topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • BTW, I took the liberty of switching the PNG for a JPG like I said above. Compare the two: png, jpg. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the image is considerably clearer. Thank you for doing that and for your support. (I'll do some more linking shortly.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen I of Hungary[edit]

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

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


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

Further comments

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

A bit more

  • "However, 500 Hungarian horsemen who accompanied Boleslav the Brave to Kiev already in 1018 indicate that Hungary had been included in the Peace of Bautzen between Poland and the Holy Roman Empire." This seems the wrong way round, assuming that the reader already knows about the Peace of Bautzen. I would suggest something like "In January 1018 Poland and the Holy Roman Empire concluded the Peace of Bautzen, and later in the same year 500 Hungarian horsemen accompanied Boreslav on a Polish expedition to Kiev, suggesting that Hungary had been included in the Peace."
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "For some night suddenly awakaned by some revelation, [Stephen] ordered a courier to hasten in one day and night to Alba..." The purpose of this quote is unclear. If it is illustrating a myth that he had magical powers, then this should be spelled out. Also "For some night suddenly awakaned by some revelation" is an odd translation into English.
Thanks. The sections were moved. I hope it is no clear. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Leodvin's report suggests that Stephen intervened in the war ending with the Byzantine conquest of Bulgaria in 1018.[112] However, the exact date of his expedition is uncertain.[111] Györffy argues that it was only in the last year of the war that Stephen led his troops against the Bulgarians, because in the previous years he had fought against the Poles." This is unclear. 'intervened' does not make clear which side he was on - perhaps something like joined the Byzantines in an attack on Bulgaria. Also what had the Poles to do with it? This needs explaining.
  • "Stephen transferred his seat" and "his old seat". Does this mean his capital? A bishop normally has a seat, not a king.
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Gerard, a member of the Sagredo or Morosini family" I think that the fact that he was an Italian Benedictine monk and future bishop is more relevant than his family.
Thanks. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "At this same time, dissensions arose..." I do not see the point of this quote. It appears to give a completely different account of the invasion without any discussion of which is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Sections were moved. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Further comments

  • "A report, preserved in Stephen's legends, of an unsuccessful attempt upon the elderly king's life by members of his court indicate that Vazul was mutilated for his participation in the plot, according to modern historians." You say that the legends do not mention Vazul, so how can they indicate that he was mutilated for participation?
Thank you. Modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • " Andrew I of Hungary (r. 1046–1060), although he acquired the throne due to a pagan uprising, prohibited pagan rites and declared that all of his subjects should "live in all things according to the law which King St. Stephen had taught them"[165] following his coronation." The last phrase "following his coronation" is confusing as it appears to refer to Stephen. It could be deleted.
Thank you. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "emphasized Stephen's severity, with Györffy's words, "in an unlegendary way"." This is ungrammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph of 'Artistic representation' is not referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I need some more day to search for sources, because I have not found any. Borsoka (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. This is in many ways a good article and based on extensive research, although I do not have access to the sources to check how they are used. However, the point of view is not neutral. The statement that Stephen's hand was discovered miraculously is WP:POV and unencyclopedic, and original sources attributing magical powers and holiness to him are quoted uncritically. The extensive citation of early lives of Stephen is WP:OR. The claim that Stephen was the first member of his family to be a devout Christian is presumably disputed among historians as Kornel Bakay in the chapter on Hungary in the New Cambridge Medieval History III says that his policy of imposing Christianity on the Hungarians by force was a continuation of his father's policy. Bakay also says that Stephen continued his father's policy of avoiding foreign entanglements and using his army against local rivals and rebels, a point not discussed in this article. Bakay further attributes considerable influence to Henry II. Of course, this is only one historian's view, but the article appears to ignore the views of historians who do not take a strongly pro-Stephen line. I have done some copy editing, but the article needs a good deal more. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and copyedit. (1) I am convinced that the article is a neutral summary of Stephen's life. However, he is also a saint who is venerated because of miracles attributed to him. "Sainthood" in itself a POV - that is why it is summarized under a separate section. All quotes from primary sources are based on scholarly works, excluding OR. (2) No historians debate that he was the first Hungarian monarch to be a devout Christian. Yes, his parents (as it is mentioned in the article) were baptised, but they remained in fact semi-pagans who continued to sacrifice to "ancient gods" even after their baptism. (3) The article writes of Stephen's all known military actions (of both his wars against Poland, Bulgaria and the Holy Roman Empire, and his wars against local chieftains and tribes). (4) Sorry, I have no access to the New Cambridge Medieval History III, so I do not know what exactly Bakay writes of Henry II's influence - "considerable influence" is quite vague. (5) Who are the historians of the "less pro-Stephen line" whose POV was ignored? Borsoka (talk) 00:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I qualified the statement that Stephen's hand was found miraculously by adding "believed to be" and you reverted with the comment "it was miraculously found". This is POV. You also have quotes attributing miraculous powers and holiness to him cited to original sources, which is POV and OR. In a few other cases you cite original sources, for example for "Stephen, who "was for the first time girded with his sword", according to the Illuminated Chronicle". Bakay says "The conversion of the Hungarians involved violence as well, since Geza did not merely invite priests (Brun and Adalbert) to spread the faith but ruled as a tyrant over his people. According to Thietmar of Merseburg he killed large numbers of people, though he met considerable difficulties in oppressing rebels and rooting out pagan rites." Even if Stephen was the first king to be a devout Christian, this suggests that his policies were to a considerable degree a continuation of his father's, whereas the article presents them as a fundamental break with the past. Bakay says that "It was Henry II who promoted the organisation of the chancery of Hungary" and "It can also hardly be doubted that Henry II played a significant part in the conversion of the Hungarians to Christianity". This is a good article, but in my view it is not quite of FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I maintain that citing primary sources based on works of scholars who also refer to the same source is not OR. That Hungary was converted by force is clearly mentioned in the article: "He ensured the spread of Christianity with severe punishments for ignoring Christian customs" (in the lead), he "converted his uncle's "country to the Christian faith by force" after its conquest", and "Bruno of Querfurt's report of the Black Hungarians' conversion by force suggests that Stephen conquered their lands at the latest in 1009" (under the title consolidation). All the same, I understand your concerns. Thank you for citing Bakay's assumptions of Henry II's role as well. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The passage from Bakay I quoted above was about Geza not Stephen. The issue is not whether Stephen converted Hungary by force, but whether his policy of converting by force was a fundamental change from a nominal adherence to Christianity by his parents, as the article implies, or a continuation of his father's policy, as Bakay implies although he does not specifically say so. Bakay does specifically say that Stephen carried on his father's policy of using his army to increase his authority internally and avoiding foreign wars as far as he could. I know very little about Hungarian history, and other historians may take a different view, but these are crucial issues which an FA article should discuss, as for example x says a and and y says b. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no debate among historians that Géza's and Sarolt's Christianity was only nominal. Neither do debate historians that the Hungarians' conversion began under Géza who used force to convert his subjects. I do not understand Bakay's remark of Stephen's foreign wars, because Stephen waged wars against Poland, Kievan Rus, Bulgaria and the Holy Roman Empire. Maybe he should have launched expeditions against England and China as well? :) Borsoka (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Bakay wrote "In order to keep these strict laws Stephen needed a strong army which he used - much as his father had done - against potential rivals and magnates indifferent to his authority (for example Ajtony-Achtum) rather than abroad. He did not even intervene in the Polish-German war of 1003-18 until Boleslav-Chobry had occupied certain territories of the Hungarian kingdom in 1018. Instead he concentrated on converting the people, waging war in 1003 against Black Hungary". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment by WP reader

I do not think that Kornél Bakay would be a reliable source by now. Formerly he was a great archaeologist, but today, he is only known for his non-mainstream views (e. g. according to Bakay, Jesus Christ was not Jewish). He is a regular guest at the far-right Jobbik party events. See more, [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Best wishes, János Á. -- (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. However Borsoka says that it is the general view of historians that the forcible conversion of the Hungarians pre-dated Stephen's rule. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I guess that Cambridge Medieval History is a reliable source independently of Bakay's political views. Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:King_saint_stephen_signature.svg: "based on" link is dead, image needs US PD tag
  • File:Chronicon_Pictum_P037_Szent_István_születése.JPG: needs a US PD tag, and is it possible to translate the summary?
  • File:Aftnn_King_Stephen,_who_we_reckon_was_responsible_for_Christianity_in_eastern_Europe.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Stephen's_forces_capture_Gyula.png needs a US PD tag
  • File:Istvánkirály.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Chronicon_Pictum_P042_Óbudai_templom_alapítása.JPG needs a US PD tag
  • File:Sainte-Dextre_Basilique_Saint-Etienne.jpg would not seem to be covered by freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you for your comments. For I do not clearly understand the above issues, I approached a fellow editor to assist me in fixing the problems. Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion on primary sources

  • Could I suggest a compromise on the primary sources issue raised above? I can see the particular problem of citing to primary sources in an article on this period - they require heavy interpretation. As you say, though, these particular sources are also used in reliable secondary works. Would there be any harm in giving both a reference to the primary source, and to a reliable secondary source that supports the use of the primary source in this way? (e.g. "Medieval chronicler I, p.34; see also Reliable modern historian, p.154") That way it would be clear that no OR is being undertaken, but you'd still have your link to the primary source? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That is fine so far as the sourcing is concerned. The problem is that quotes claiming that Stephen was successful due to holiness and magical powers are inserted without context, not with the "heavy interpretation" which they require, as you say. If they are intended to show the views of later chroniclers, they should be in the legacy section, not apparently explaining the events themselves. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
All quotes from a primary source are based on an academic work. Would you please specify which are the quotes that you propose to move?
I would suggest keeping quotes from the laws and admonitions, but stating the source at the start as it is irritating to have to look at the end to see what you are reading. All these should have a citation in a secondary source as well as the primary one, as Hchc suggested. Glaber's comment on pilgrimage is contemporary and could be introduced with something like. "According to Rodulfus Glaber writing in about 1040 (?):" I would remove all the eulogistic quotes and use them or other quotes to illustrate your discussion of the chroniclers' view of Stephen. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, the quote templates themselves make it clear that they are quotes. Why should we change them or duplicate the info? Maybe question mark could assist? Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This is purely my personal preference not a requirement or a policy so far as I know, and does not affect the FAC. I find it more readable when the source of a quote is given at the beginning as something like "According to Rodulfus Glaber writing in about 1040:" instead of the name at the end. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Henry Burrell (admiral)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Support Comments

  • This is kinda fussy, but link the N-class article since you mention it.
    • Done.
  • Be sure that your refs are in number order, unlike this bit: 15 September 1941.[5][14]
    • Um, doesn't 14 come after 5? Or have I missed the point... :-)
      • It rather appears that I missed it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you explain more fully or link the General List? I'm not sure that I have a good understanding of what it involves.
    • I've explained a little bit more. Alternatively we could link to Navy List, although that's a general article rather than the specific Australian one.
  • Also link to the Second Naval Member. I suspect that this is the Aussie equivalent to the 2nd Sea Lord, but would like confirmation. And is that part of the Navy Office or the Naval Staff? Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not as familiar with the past structure of the RAN as I am of the RAAF but I believe they were somewhat similar, meaning the Navy Office was analogous to the Navy Department (as it then was), whereas the Naval Board actually commanded the service, being made up of the Naval Staff (i.e. Naval Members of the Board) and some civilians. In the absence of anything more specific I've piped Second Naval Member to Australian Commonwealth Naval Board. Tks for looking this over! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


  • "led to him being personally nominated by": Some copyeditors feel sure that this isn't as good as "led to an invitation by" (in this context). Others think that your way is fine, that it's better to use a verb when the sense is verbal, as here. There's a fair amount of prejudice against any redundant "being" in the copyediting world. Just passing this along, I don't have a recommendation.
    • Changed to "led to Prime Minister Robert Menzies personally nominating him"
  • "on the event": This usually means "on the occasion" (but I believe that testing will show that it's uncommon enough for an international readership that it's not appropriate, even to mean "on the occasion").
    • That was a typo, should have been "in the event of war".
  • Check for single quote marks.
    • Found one instance, corrected.
  • "desultory": uncommon word - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Illogan Park": Why italics?
    • My understanding is that house or farm names take italics but if I'm wrong I'll happily change it.
      • Okay, the case can be made to italicize. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks Dan! One thing, I seem to remember "in fact" being somewhat frowned upon in WP, perhaps your old standby "as it happened" might be preferable in this case? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
      • That's fine. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Swedish_galley_(1749).jpg: as I understand it, freedom of panorama laws in Sweden do not cover works exhibited indoors
  • File:Fredrik_Henrik_af_Chapman-Pasch_portrait.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
  • File:Chebec_genois_de_14_canons_en_1826.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Should be fixed now (along with alt descriptions that I always forget to add before nominations).[13] The photo of the galley model is PD since the model is contemporary with the original galley design (noted in the image description). I don't recall if there was an exact date in the museum, but it was made in 18th century or possibly the early 19th century. These models were often made by (or for) the shipwright to be displayed for the monarch or navy officials to impress them into securíng the desired building contracts. Or merely as a demonstration.
    • What should I do about the dead link, though? It's still the original source. Peter Isotalo 06:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Have you tried That can help restore the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Oh, that. No, I tried that before, I believe. It's not archived. But in what way does it matter? Is it to establish the source of the file itself or the information about the painting? Peter Isotalo 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

Comment from Aa77zz[edit]

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

Comments from Peter Isotalo[edit]

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

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

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

Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with them as best I can and look forward to more. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and made some tweaks myself.[14] Surprisingly little to fix, I must say. Good job overall. Looks like a well-rounded, well-written article. Support.
Peter Isotalo 19:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your tweaks and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Image check - all OK

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Comments from Jim[edit]

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

  • Isopoda is an order of peracarid crustaceans.— very off-putting as first sentence. Why not open with something like Isopoda is a group of crustaceans that includes woodlice and sea-slaters before launching into taxonomy?
See below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The name Isopoda has been derived from the Greek roots ἴσος (iso-, meaning "same") and πούς (pod-, pous, meaning "foot")— why "has been"? Isn't this the current accepted derivation?
You must have been looking at an old version of the article because that change was made before your comment! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You could help your readers by glossing technical terms either parenthetically eg oostegites (plate-like flaps) or by piping eg seabed-dwelling
Working on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In places, you appear to have almost deliberately made things difficult. Examples include gnathopods instead of the linked appendage, and the obscure classical plural "penes" rather than the familiar English plural "penises" (I've never seen the former in anything I've read)
Changed the latter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not far off, just needs to be more accessible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
In general, information is lost when technical terms are avoided, e.g. "gnathopod" is a special case of "appendage" which doesn't have its own article, which is why it redirects to the explanation in the more general article. On your first point, all species groupings are taxonomic groupings, so IMO it would be improper to define it without at least calling it an order. Nothing wrong with something like "Isopoda is an order of peracarid crustaceans which include [examples]" though. Sunrise (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Jim. I have removed the word "peracarid" from the first sentence as being unhelpful and have rewritten that sentence and a fair proportion of the lead. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Support Changes improve the readability of what, realistically, is never going to be an easy article, Happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "may occupy one or more of these feeding habits": It doesn't sound right to occupy a habit.
  • "first known instance": "first" in what sense? (only? first discovered?)
  • "they need to conserve water, often living in a humid environment and sheltering under stones, bark, debris or leaf litter.": That's mine. Fix it if it's wrong, please.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That was helpful, and I have attended to your suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Spotcheck by Little Jerry[edit]

  • From the article: Isopods lack an obvious carapace (shell), which is reduced to a "cephalic shield" covering only the head. This means that the gill-like structures, which in other related groups are protected by the carapace, are instead found on specialised limbs on the abdomen'
    • From the source [8]: Because they lack a carapace, the gills, which are covered by the carapace in other groups, are absent, so they breathe using specialised lamellar gill-like pleopods ("swimming limbs") on the posterior section of the body."
    • From the source [3]: (2)the carapace reduced to a cephalic shield... (7)abdominal branchial structures...
  • From the article: Some members of the family Cirolanidae suck the blood of fish, and others, in the family Aegidae, consume the blood, fins, tail and flesh and can kill the fish in the process
    • From the source [17]: One very large group of isopods, the Family Cirolanidae, is comprised of carrion-eating scavengers and parasites. The parasites may prey on and suck the blood of some fishes.... The isopod [Aegids] then swims rapidly up and fastens on to the fish, and proceeds to eat its fins and tail. The bug then slices open the fish and eats all its blood, proceeding then to eat the lateral muscle bands and, when they are done, they discard the guts and skeleton.
  • From the article: They [Isopods] were primitive, short-tailed members of the suborder Phreatoicidea. At that time, Phreatoicideans were marine organisms with a cosmopolitan distribution. Nowadays, the members of this formerly widespread suborder form relic populations in freshwater environments in South Africa, India and Oceania, the greatest number of species being in Tasmania. Other primitive, short-tailed suborders include Asellota, Microcerberidea, Calabozoidea and the terrestrial Oniscidea.
    • From the source [14]: In general, the primitive suborders (e.g. Phreatoicidea, Asellota, Microcerberidea, Calabozoidea, Oniscidea, Valvifera).... Phylogenetic analyses and the fossil record agree that the earliest isopods (and the most primitive living species) are members of the short-tailed suborder Phreatoicidea. Today, phreatoicids have a strictly freshwater Gondwanan distribution, with most species occurring in the rivers and lakes of Tasmania. The earliest fossil records of isopods are phreatoicids dating from the Pennsylvanian (the Carboniferous Period of the Paleozoic Era), 300 million year ago. However, Paleozoic phreatoicids were marine forms and they had a cosmopolitan distribution; their fossils have been found in marine deposits from Europe and North America. Thus, the present-day Gondwanan freshwater distribution of these primitive crustaceans represents a relic, or refugial biogeographic pattern.

Looks alright to me. LittleJerry (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the spotchecks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Iftah Ya Simsim[edit]

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

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

Image review

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


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

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

Image review

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

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

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

Comments from Cassianto

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


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

Notable features

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

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

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

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

that is fine - having readers unfamiliar with material helps make it as accessible as possible as we can forget which words are jargony Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The link for "Southern sky" in redirected to "Southern hemisphere", but that page does not give a good definition of southern sky. If I looked to the south for it in the UK, I would not see Pictor. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I will try and find a better link. If you look in the Characteristics section, it explains that it is only wholly seen at latitudes south of 26 N. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "... its second-brightest star Beta Pictoris, 63.4 light-years distant, ...". Distant from what? The brightest star or from Earth. The number 63.4 does not appear in the body of the article (not found with a search), so this is factual information that only occurs in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
whoops, I must have forgotten to keep that in the body of text. Now readded. I have added "to Earth" to clarify distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "super-Earths"; sounds like jargon to me. I had to look at the linked page to find out what it meant. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, it is a succinct way of describing planets of mass greater than the earth but much less than the gas giants. The term is very widely used in astronomy and science now and not quite filtering into general speech I take it. I though the name and blue-link would be enough to explain especially as the name is pretty obvious. I guess I could describe then as "two planets heavier than Earth" but then that loses accuracy as Jupiter is heavier than Earth and that is not what we mean here. Question is, if we said "super-Earths (planets heavier than earth)", that is a bit repetitive and obvious I would have thought Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have seen worse jargon. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "white main sequence star Alpha Pictoris,"; contains two consecutive blue links, which should be avoided. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I rejigged the sentence to address this, as both terms should be linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "Pictor has attracted attention in recent years"; "recent years" seems a bit vague to me. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, upon removing the "in recent years", I realise it is redundant Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why not mention how far Alpha Pictor is away from the Earth in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is looks like most astronomical features are capitalized, but "southern sky" is given as lower case. Why is this? Perhaps, Southern Celestial Hemisphere would be a better target, and I note that Southern Sky is capitalized on that page. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, this is great. This article needed to be done beofre now and I must have missed it when linking things. Links corrected now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "... a nova which brightened to magnitude 1.2 in 1925." Presumably this was not a nova before 1925 or after 1925 (only a nova during the ictus), so I think that the language needs improving. Possibly change to something like; "A nova caused this star to brighten to magnitude 1.2 in 1925." However, I have just followed the link to "nova" and I think that this word is jargon. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
the star is the nova, the nova doesn't cause the star. It became a nova - reworded now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I am puzzled, because the nova article says; "A nova (plural novae or novas) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion on a white dwarf. This makes a nova sound like an event rather than an object. The article goes on to say that a star can have more than one nova events. Is a nova a rather long-lasting event where hydrogen gravitating to the star becomes a fuel for nuclear fusion? The introduction makes it sound like the whole star became a nova, but in reality I think that it would be just hydrogen (and possibly its lower molecular weight elements) that were involved in the explosive nova event. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Did the star dim after the ictus? If so, this could be helpful in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Is RR Pictoris still subject to the nova event, which started in 1925? or has the nova event ended now? Snowman (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have just noticed that RR Pic is now magnitude 12.5 as listed on List of stars in Pictor. This sounds to me that the nova event on this star has ended now, but I might be wrong. Snowman (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have also just seen the Wiki article RR Pictoris, which goes in the some of the details of the nova event. I find that the language there much more logical than in the introduction. The article says; "RR Pictoris is a cataclysmic variable star system that flared up as a nova that lit up in the constellation Pictor in 1925." I think that the expression "flared up" helps to convey that the nova event was a temporary condition. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I have done some more reading and expanded the daughter article a little. I am tired and need to sleep right now but will likely rejig and use "flared" in lead - will sleep on it. You are welcome to tinker with that or I will be back in several hours Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) Have rejigged the lead now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Kapteyn's Star is a red dwarf located 12.76 light-years away"; away from what. There are lots of ways of fixing this. Would it be better to list the main stars with their distances in the first paragraph and details about the stars in a subsequent paragraph? Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have added that it is the nearest star of the constellation to Earth. Will that amendment fix this? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
yes that is fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "orange dwarf"; probably should be wikilinked. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency in language between Beta Pic has "as well as an extrasolar planet" and HD 40307 "is an orange dwarf that has six planets orbiting it". It is obvious that a planet going around a star in a constellation light years away from the Sun is an extrasolar planet. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
By stating it is obvious, do you mean the adjectival bit is unnecessary or necessary? I thought the best practice would be to use full title (Exoplanet) and link on first mention and then just planet thereafter as it is obvious (and hence implied) they are exoplanets (like using full name of a person at first mention before abbreviating to surname thereafter...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It is obvious, so why not just say that some of the stars of Pictor are known to have planets. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The List of stars in Pictor say Alpha Pit is 3.24 magnitude, but the article says 3.3. I presume that to the nearest one decimal point 3.24 should be rounded down to 3.2. Why not use two decimal places? Snowman (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The consensus is at SIMBAD, which has 3.30. I have no idea how the other value got into the list and I have changed it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the dwarf galaxy Omega Centauri swallowed up by the Milky Way." How speculative is this? Snowman (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
It is certain that it is a globular cluster and likely (but not certain) that it is a dwarf galaxy. Hence I will change the lead to what is certain as it is hard to be speculative. The body of the article has a bit more space so it can be touched upon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Another five stars in the constellation have been found to have extrasolar planets". This implies that there are six stars with planets. But the infobox says that there are a total of five stars with planets. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Aaah yes. that has not been updated since Kapteyn's star discovery Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, List of stars in Pictor lists five stars with planets, unless I missed something. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That also has not been updated since Kapteyn's star discovery. I have fixed that now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It has taken me quite a long time to realize that the easel is simply drawn as two straight lines joining up the three main stars. If this is correct, can the caption of the night sky photograph included this, and perhaps this can also be briefly included in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Constellations are notoriously inaccurate in depicting what they are supposed to depict. I have no source that discusses how and what lines depict what, so I am at a loss in what I can write here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the original name Equuleus Pictoris". Its first Latin name is Equuleus Pictoris. The original name is "le Chevalet et la Palette". Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
you are correct, hence I have changed "original --> older" in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

In the history section;

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

In other sections:

  • "Pictor is a faint constellation, its three brightest stars forming a line near the prominent Canopus." It is not possible for one straight line to join the three main stars as seen from Earth. Two straight lines are needed. Snowman (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, but the sentence does not specify the line is straight. And the three are a bit too linear to be clearly a triangle (well, a very flat one). Any three stars can be connected by two lines so that would make the comment redundant. I am open to suggestions..."bent line"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
"Two straight lines angled at the middle star". What is the angle in degrees? See Line (geometry). Could exclude all mention of lines and just say that the three main stars are near to Canopus. Snowman (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I've done that as the easiest Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Probably easiest and best way. Snowman (talk) 15:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Provisional impression. Until recently, I was concerned that all the reviewers including myself had little knowledge of astronomy. I think that the long section on stars in the "Notable features" section is too long and its length put me off from reading it. I think that there is probably a better way to organize the the information on stars with more sub-headings. I think that some tables might be useful. Perhaps, a table on "Stars known to have planets" would be useful and perhaps some other tables or lists would help. I will leave it to others to decide if this article is FA or not. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • "The event was remote, with a redshift of 0.54". Most distances are given as light years, so the use of redshift as a distance does not seem consistent. Why not give the equivalent distance in light years as well here? Snowman (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that the flow if the second paragraph of the introduction could be improved. Any comments? Should deep sky objects be included in the introduction? Snowman (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I rejigged lead to make material segue on more naturally. I am tempted to add Pictor A to lead though might write the article first. Not keen on a redlink in the lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I do not know much about astronomy, but I found watching "The Sky at Night" on TV interesting. Can the second paragraph in the introduction be made any more interesting? I have not been sufficiently motivated to read the long paragraph about stars from beginning to end, but this might be because I am rather busy doing tasks out-of-doors. Snowman (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • History
    • "two-year stay at the Cape of Good Hope". It would be good to be more specific about where he was staying. I don't think there's an observatory at the Cape itself - perhaps he was staying in Cape Town? Or did he have a cottage somewhere in the area?
have added it as a footnote Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Characteristics:
    • It would be good to give a definition of the polygon defining the constellation, or to point to the infobox picture as an illustration of it.
note telling folks to look in infobox added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It might be worth mentioning how far south you have to go before the constellation is always in the sky.
added what I could find Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Stars:
    • Alpha Pictoris - it would be better to reference the journal article directly for the spectral type, rather than just simbad (the relevant reference is given in simbad).
ref added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "In 1984 Beta was" - I wouldn't shorten the name to "Beta" - better to use the full names. It seems to be a toss-up about whether the greek letter should be spelt out or used directly - the latter might be more compact though.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd recommend linking to the journal article for the Beta Pictoris planet discovery, either instead of or in addition to the press release, and giving an uncertainty range rather than saying "approximately 8 AU". Also, I'd link to Very Large Telescope rather than the European Southern Observatory.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
    • "In 2014 Kapteyn's Star was announced to host two super-Earths" - the grammar could be better by saying "In 2014 it was announced that Kapteyn's Star has two super-Earths", but scientifically it would be good to say by which method they were discovered. The same goes for other exosolar planets in the constellation.
done for all the planets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I have apparent magnitude linked at first mention in lead and in body of text. Not sure if this extra one is needed to Magnitude (astronomy) and if so where from Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Deep-sky objects
    • I'm fairly sure there will be more objects worth mentioning than are currently listed here, but you'll need to search for them based on coordinates as constellations aren't really used that much in modern astronomy.
I tried looking for stuff using "pictor" and some keywords in Google scholar. Will give it once more but the idea is that the constellation page is for more notable objects and not more exhaustive... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • GRB 060729 might be worth mentioning. Also, there might be more useful material at [16] that can be incorporated here. (Yes, this is where I spotted the GRB, rather than searching on the coordinates...)
GRB definitely notable and added. am scouring for anything else. Coordinates is going to ce a challenge....the words.."needle" and "haystack" come tio mind... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Introduction: no citations listed
generally don't need inlines in lead as all material in lead is in body (and reffed at that point) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Introduction > Kapteyn's star: it is likely to have been a member of a small galaxy that has been swallowed by the Milky Way, of which omega Centauri (note lower case omega, following the Bayer designation) is a suggested candidate. It's quite metal-rich for omega Centauri, although a small handful of stars do have this metallicity.
I suspect that is more of an issue to go in detail on the page about the star - I can only go on the leaving it as a possibility (which some sources consider it to be) and then leaving the pros and cons to the daughter page on the star I thought was the best way of summarising. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • History: "canvass" -> "canvas"

f:::oops..missed that; extra 's' removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Notable features > Stars: I got lost in this section. Would it be better as a bulletted list?
see above. I figure the blue text serves as markers for items to read or click on Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Notable features > Stars > Delta Pictoris: it's worth saying the stars are oval shaped because they are gravitationally distorted by each other (rather than rotationally distorted like alpha Pic).
good point...added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Notable features > Stars > RR Pictoris: it's not clear what's meant by "calculations of the speed" (-> "calculations from the orbital speed"?)
yep. orbital speed. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

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

It looks to me that there's only one comment above from Mike that's not been acknowledged, yes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
aah, forgot about that. fixing it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

thanx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hasil Adkins[edit]

Nominator(s): — MusikAnimal talk 01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Hasil Adkins, a musician who helped spawn the psychobilly genre. Growing up rural West Virginia in the midst of the depression, Adkins found his passion as a musician and learned to play multiple instruments simultaneously, what became a trademark of his. For the next 50 years he constantly wrote and performed, his songs often pertaining to chicken, hot dogs, aliens, sex and decapitation. He was rediscovered in the late 80s and managed to grow a cult following before being fatally ran over by an ATV in 2005.

Coming from start class, over the past 10 months I have completely rewritten it, and it attained GA status this past May. Not much has changed since then, but as far as I can tell it meets all FA criteria. An effort to get a peer review unfortunately yielded no feedback. Since the rewrite, I am pretty much the only substantial contributor to this article. I am aware of how untraditional this must seem, but hopefully this does not go against what is expected from a featured article. Thanks for any and all feedback! — MusikAnimal talk 01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Feedback from Retrohead[edit]

  • The lead, at least in FAs, should summarize the article, thus exclusive information shouldn't be featured there. The birth date should also be mentioned in the opening sentence of the 'Personal life', which means moving the cite there as well.
  • The lead could use some expansion. How about mentioning he lived in poverty and that he briefly attended school, for example?
    Per WP:LEADLENGTH I don't want to expand beyond two paragraphs. The existing two could of course be expanded, but I'm not sure how to approach it. I added that he grew up in poverty; touching on his school attendance may not be best as that is actually disputed amongst different sources. I tried to adhere to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and summarize in a neutral way, skipping things like his mental illnesses and run ins with the law. Should I get into specifics like that? — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you have a point. Giving weight the article's length, two paragraphs might be the optimal solution. As for the article's body, I'll avoid stand-alone sentence to be in separate paragraphs (last sentences from 'Personal life' and 'Musical style') even though they discuss topics that are not closely related.--Retrohead (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I prefer to see the musician's life in one section, and his musical legacy in a separate one. The sentence about his death should be moved in 'Personal life', and the section should be consequently re-named only as "Legacy".
  • It is useful to incorporate alt text in the images for screen readers.
  • There are number of words that should be de-linked, since they appear to be common words: poverty, given name, meat, liquor, cigarettes, decapitation, comedic horror, sex, heartbreak, aliens, hot dogs.
  • The last three of the 'External links' should be titled.
    Those weren't that useful anyway, so I removed them. — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Legend has it that he... I see this is borrowed from his website, a primary source. This kind of sources can not be used for telling legends about the artist himself; not to mention this likely falls under trivia.
  • An incident occurred in 1957 when he and three friends drove a car off a mountain. This incident needs to be more detailed. Surviving a literal fall from a mountain seems supernatural to the casual reader in the state it is written.
    I've expanded on this a bit, but unfortunately there's not much more to say than what's there now. Adkins' life is full of farfetched and mythically proportioned stories like this. This particular one was reported in the local press so I added it, others just hearsay. With Adkins it's hard to know what's true and just a myth, so I tried to only say what we know for sure. — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Retrohead: I've addressed the above concerns as best as I could, leaving comments for the ones I'm not too sure about. Any additional input is greatly appreciated! — MusikAnimal talk 17:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Here are a few more notes MusikAnimal:

  • "His genres include"–think "he performed/played" would be a better option. To label the genres as his might mean he invented them.
  • midst of the depression (lead)–we should have a link here to the Great Depression. Otherwise, the reader might assume he had psychological depression.
  • where he lived his entire life–I suggest spent instead of lived
  • "toured with "dancing go-go chickens"→are you allegorically saying that he was eating chicken on the tour?
  • improvised studio might be better over a primitive studio
  • is Elmo Williams worth a red link?
  • Ok, since not everyone knows "Blue Suede Shoes" is an Elvis Presley song, I think it would be better to write that Adkins covered artist such as Presley and the author of the second song listed in 'Musical style' besides singing his own material.
  • I did some copyediting on the audio file description and titling, as well as some on the prose. Just to ask, is the date of 10 May 1991 really needed in the image caption, or could we write just the year?

Chris Gragg[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Source review

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


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

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

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

Thirteen (Megadeth album)[edit]

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

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

Comments by The Banner[edit]

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

Comments by J Milburn and LuciferMorgan[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

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

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

Comments by Niwi3[edit]

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

I'll get to addressing these in the next couple days--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead should mention what critics liked and/or disliked about the album. I would also remove the Matacritic rating as it is redundant.
Metacritic rating removed, but as for what critics liked or didn't like, there isn't really a whole lot of consistency either way.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The 'Writing, recording and album artwork' section needs to be rewritten because it looks like a history. Almost every paragraph starts with a date and follows the same pattern: "In [insert date here], the band [insert announcement here]". This makes the article uninteresting and repetitive. The prose should flow, like one person speaking to another.
Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC) Update Did some work there, but I've left some dates there for the purpose of clarity. I also trimmed some unnecessary commentary from the band regarding the album's production--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Do not use contractions: "Mustaine commented on the quality of the songs on Thirteen by declaring he hadn't heard an album that" -> had not; "She said that the album wasn't "perfect", but noted that..." -> was not.
Both done immediately since they're quick fixes--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Two songs from Thirteen were specifically written with video game soundtracks in mind The first of these is 'Sudden Death' while the second is 'Never Dead'" - Needs a dot between "mind" and "the first of these".
Done immediately since it was a quick fix--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph in the Songs section needs a reference.
Info repeated, expanded upon and cited further down in that section already--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet[edit]

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

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

Comments from Crisco 1492[edit]

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

Comments from TonyTheTiger[edit]

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

Fixed. Absolutely it should. Thanks for the review, Nikkimaria! Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Nikki passed this image review (diff to comment to confirm is here:) [18] Prhartcom (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "He thought it an ode to friendship, composed "under the double sign of tenacity and friendship". "It's a story of friendship,": Repetition of "friendship"
    • Yes. See above. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • We can throw this into the pile of things to test for readability and flow, if you like. Most copyeditors will bet that a lot of readers are going to pause and wonder if something's wrong. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Thompson called it "a book of overwhelming whiteness and purity," saying that the "intensely personal nature of the story made this Hergé's favourite Tintin adventure,": If the two commas aren't in the originals, move them outside of the quotations, per WP:LQ.
    • Fixed; good catch. In the source, the first was a full stop and the second was a comma, but I believe what you and the MOS suggest are still preferred. There was another occurrence of this problem in the article and I fixed it also (and there are numerous examples of proper usage). Thanks again for catching this. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "adding that if readers wondered whether "the effects of the enormous weight lifted from Hergé's shoulders,": If this isn't missing a verb, then "lifted" is the verb ... and it shouldn't be, because it will be read at first as an adjectival past participle. I'd drop "the effects of", and stick a "[was]" before "lifted".
    • Fixed. This is a good observation. You are quite right; I was using "lifted" as the verb; it's a verb, but it isn't the predicate. Let's really geek out and look at this closely. Here is the original source: 'The effects [of weight lifted] can be seen.' This has it's own proper subject and predicate. Thinking I was clever, I stuck an introductory phrase up against it (which is fine) and also divided it into two phrases separated by a comma (which is also fine) but if I am going to do that, each phrase needs its own subject and predicate (and I mistakenly thought "lifted" was the first predicate). Therefore, I see two possible ways to fix this, one of which is your suggestion, and the other is perhaps even simpler. Here is the first: "adding that if readers wondered whether 'the effects of the enormous weight [were] lifted from Hergé's shoulders, [this] can be seen'" and here is the second: "adding that, 'the effects of the enormous weight lifted from Hergé's shoulders can be seen'". The first has two phrases each with noun/verb agreement and the second has the original one. What are your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • As long as grammar problems are fixed, I'm happy. Reviewers in general will be happier if you aim for conciseness. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Given that the book was translated into 32 languages,": The balance of opinion is against the textbook-y "given that". How about this? "The book was translated into 32 languages;".
    • I see, but then it loses the introductory phrase; we should at least say, "As the book was translated into 32 languages", keeping a comma following and not the semicolon, but I am sad to hear about the fate of "given that" as I thought it was fine. What are your thoughts; may I keep it? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "As" is fine with me. If you want to keep "given that", I suggest we test it for tone. - Dank (push to talk)
        • Fixed; added "As". Prhartcom (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
    • By the way, this sentence has the word/number "32". Twice in this article I spell out a number: "twenty-eight" and "twenty-three" (and the second one there is a quote) so I seem to be inconsistent. Do you think I should change the above to "thirty-two" or change the others to numbers? (I suppose I can't change the quote ...) Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Technically, it's not inconsistent if all numbers above a fixed number are numerals and all those at or below are written out ... but if the fixed number is anything over 10 or maybe 20, then the text will become inconsistent over time as people insert numerals that are lower than your cutoff. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "this is the moira of Hergé's own white mythology, his anaemic destiny: to become Sarrasine to Tintin's la Zambinella.": I think our target readership is going to have to work too hard to make sense of this sentence, and to make sense of the analogy (Tintin as a castrato?)
    • Oh dear. But that means cut it completely and losing the Balzac footnote too, which devastates me. Okay, how about this idea: Keep it, but add some explanation. Right before this sentence is the word "expounding"; perhaps change that one word into a phrase: "expounding on his destiny,"? Or maybe I have to just cut it, but I could leave: "this is the moira of Hergé's own white mythology, his anaemic destiny" and cut the Balzac (sniff!). What are your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • This has prompted me to add a new essay in my style guide called HEARTS AND MINDS. You're asking the readers to trust that the effort they're putting in will be rewarded, and of course readers will draw the lines in different places. Not many of our readers are going to be persuaded that it's worth their time to look up all the uncommon words in that sentence, and then study the plot of the novella to get the analogy. The best writing in the world is no good if the reader makes the choice not to follow along. I'm not saying this wouldn't be fantastic in a scholarly treatise on Tintin. Your last sentence seems fine to me, if you stick "[fate]" after "moira". - Dank (push to talk)
      • To clarify: I'm not saying you can't mention Balzac, it's above my pay grade to decide what goes in the article. I'm saying that complicated ideas should be explained, at a reasonable pace, and without too many fancy words that aren't needed for comprehension. It's fine to say, in the note or in the text, that McCarthy and Vandromme compare Hergé to Balzac, or that McCarthy analogizes Tintin to (whatever, and explain the analogy).
        • I believe this is the most elevated copy edit discussion I have ever had. It should be, given that I've intentionally subjected this article to the reviews of nearly a dozen copy editors just to get to this point! I see what you're saying, Dank. I need to think about how best to apply your suggestions. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Really good writing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Dank, your edits are fine and appreciated; thank-you for the complement and for these comments; I really enjoyed delving into the detail while trying to answer them! I would appreciate hearing back from you. Prhartcom (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
        • The best part of FAC is discussions with smart people that open my eyes to new way of looking at things. Thanks again for your review. Prhartcom (talk) 02:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks kindly, I look forward to more Tintin at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Neelix[edit]

This article looks great overall. I do have some concerns:

  • It's good to have your review, Neelix! And so many comments! I will read each one; I will need some time to do this. Soon, I will return. Prhartcom (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Having the phrase "intensely personal" in quotation marks in the lead suggests that Hergé is being quoted, when it is in fact Harry Thompson, who is not mentioned in the lead. I recommend rephrasing this sentence to remove the quoted phrase.
    • No. I'm so sorry to start this way; I am eager to accept your expert insight when I know it will make the article better but I will let you know if I believe your idea will not, and I hope the latter doesn't keep you from eventually giving your Support. I knew about the "unattributed" Thompson quote in the lead; I hadn't considered it could be attributed to Hergé. Nearly all authors in the bibliography write in some way that this was an intensely personal experience for Hergé; there's really no denying this—except that of course the voice of the encyclopedia should not make such a strong statement, only a quote can, which is why I'm quoting one of them here. We do not want to weaken the prose in this sentence. If I had written an weak sentence here you would be leaving me a note asking me to make is less wishy-washy. I considered adding a single footnote reference in the lead referencing either the one or all authors who said this and can still do so, but I decided the article attributes this exact quote to Thompson later, so I believe all bases are covered. Let me know if you think I should add the exceptional footnote and if so, to the one or all authors, which I would be happy to do. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Using quotation marks is not the way to emphasize a statement in an encyclopedia. At present, having these two words in quotation marks will be interpreted very differently by different people; some readers will take them to be scare quotes indicating that the phrase's validity should be questioned, while others will take it to be a quotation by Hergé as I did. In any case, I do not see a reason to further emphasize this phrase by way of punctuation; the rest of the sentence already serves to give the phrase emphasis, as it details why the work was intensely personal. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • OK. You may be misunderstanding me; I meant that I intend to use a stronger voice here than what the neutral voice generally allows. I am assuming that can only be done by asking one of the biographers to say it for us, as they have greater leeway in their vocabulary. I wouldn't mind if I am wrong; it would be fine to avoid the quote marks and still communicate "intensely personal". I certainly do not think the scare quotes argument is valid. I kept thinking about this and focused on your main objection, which is that it currently says "Hergé considered it ... intensely personal" when he didn't exactly, and that is a fair point (although the other thing we say is true: ""Hergé considered it his favourite Tintin adventure.") Why don't we say, "Hergé considered it his favourite Tintin adventure while Hergé's biographers wrote of the "intensely personal" effort Hergé undertook to complete it." Let me know if that is better. Or if you have other ideas please suggest the rephrasing you are asking for. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't wish to rock the boat on this one although I find myself in agreement with Neelix on this particular instance. I think that we could remove these quotation marks without too much problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank-you, Midnightblueowl; I feel better already now that you are here. What can we do, what do you suggest? Prhartcom (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
        • If Midnightblueowl is recommending that the quotation marks simply be removed, I would agree that this seems to be the best option. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I don't think that the simple removal of the quotation marks will cause any problems, and it does have the great benefit of removing the problem that Neelix points out. So that would certainly be my recommendation although I am happy if we decide to consult other editors too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Really? I am honestly surprised to learn it is okay to quote in the lead without quote marks, but I am willing to learn from anyone wiser than myself. I didn't think Wikipedia's unquoted voice could speak loaded language like "intensely personal" without quoting it. I don't see any mention of your idea at WP:QUOTE. And you're sure this isn't WP:EDITORIALIZING? I was ready to keep the quote marks but add a single footnote to it. Having a single footnote in the lead, while a little inconsistent, is at least encyclopedic, which I would rather prefer over any ambiguity. Midnightblueowl and Neelix, do you mind if I ask at least one other, perhaps Curly Turkey, Crisco 1492, TonyTheTiger, or Dank; whoever has a few minutes, to comment on this topic? This decision should be based on established precedent. Re-read my last suggestion above. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
              • I'd assumed it was a Hergé quote—I'd say it's nearly impossible to assume otherwise, given that the quote isn't attributed, and no context for the quote is provided (in the lead, I mean). I understand your motivation for wanting to include it there, Prhartcom, but it's not an encyclopaedic one. The Lofficiers and Farr also describe the work as "personal", and I'm sure I've seen others do so as well. I'd drop both the quotes and the "intensely", and then perhaps throw in a line in the body summing up those who called the book "personal" or some synonym for it (should be easy). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
                • Fixed. I have changed it to "Hergé considered it his favourite Tintin adventure and a personal effort, as he...". No intensely. I admit that was simpler than I thought and the result actually works. Prhartcom (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • Looks better now. I hate having single word quotes, as it is ambiguous almost anywhere. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to leave the lead ambiguous about whether or not Hergé left his wife. I recommend rewording the phrase "a personal conflict over whether he should leave his wife..." to "his process of deciding to leave his wife..."
    • Fixed. I believe you just made the article stronger. Now, at this late stage I want to change very few words to accomplish this; the word "decide", which you suggest, is the perfect word to use. I have have changed from "a personal conflict over whether he should leave his wife" to "a personal conflict while deciding to leave his wife". Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The metaphor "parade of characters" diverges from the standard tone and writing style of an encyclopedia. I recommend something more like "large cast of characters".
    • Fixed. As you might imagine, some portions of this article have been endlessly tinkered with and discussed with other reviewers while trying to arrive at the correct prose, and this passage is one of them. One reviewer took exception with the word "cast", as this is not a play or show. However, I have decided to overrule them and listen to you; it now says "large cast" of characters instead of "parade". I would be interested to hear your comment on the merits of your solution vs. theirs. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I can understand the other reviewer's concerns on this front; I had not initially recognized that the word "cast" is also a metaphor in this context. Perhaps "multitude of characters" would be better, avoiding what to call a book's _ of characters entirely. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed, however not the way you asked; "multitude" is worse than "parade". The former sounds like an excessive description of the twelve or so characters in that book, and the latter really does describe how they appear in the book, one by one. Please know that I will impertinently swat back anything I believe makes this article worse (just as I will lovingly embrace anything that makes this article better). I have changed it to "large number of characters"; it's less intriguing (we tried and failed to push the boundaries) but it wins points for being understandable. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The verb tense in sentences about the text itself should follow the literary present tense, as explained here. For example, "Tintin in Tibet differed from other stories..." should read "Tintin in Tibet differs from other stories..."
    • Fixed. Great catch. I agree completely and yet missed it; thank-you for spotting that one. I just looked for other errors of this type but I believe we have now caught them all. Nice Vanderbilt link! Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for making this switch. The rest of that sentence should be in the present tense as well (ie. features, is). Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. I'm so sorry, I apologise; my eyes are opened. I love that sentence now. Thank-you very much for that. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • That sentence looks great now; thanks for making those changes. The "Critical analysis" section should receive some attention in this respect as well. For example, "the literary analysis of Tom McCarthy compared..." should read "the literary analysis of Tom McCarthy compares...", etc. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Fixed. I believe you are right. Unlike all of the History, Awards, and Adaptation sections, all of the Critical Analysis section takes place in the present tense. Is that what you are saying? I never noticed before that this should be the case. We should now return to other FA and GA Tintin articles and correct this, actually. For this article, a total of 16 small changes were required in this section and they all have been made. The changes were all similar; "Assouline called" changed to "Assouline calls" and "He also suggested" changed to "He also suggests". Please check this work and ensure we caught them all. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify why "Tintin believes that his friend Chang Chong-Chen is badly injured and calling for help" and why "Tharkey believes that Tintin saw the Yeti"? The text does not currently suggest any reason that they came to believe these things.
    • Fixed the first point, please check and reply with your thoughts. I see what you mean, I appreciate that you pointed this out, and I agree that this needs explanation, as we do mention extrasensory perception later in the article without enough context here. It is important to only add a few strategic words to this carefully condensed synopsis, though, for reasons I'm sure you are aware, without losing any of the power of the existing prose. I changed to: "Tintin believes that he can see his friend Chang Chong-Chen, badly injured and calling for help"; italic words are newly inserted, the comma is new and replaces the deleted verb "is". Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • How would you feel about wording it "Tintin has a vision of his friend..." The sentence as currently written suggests that Tintin can see Chang in a photograph accompanying the news report. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. So much clearer and better, and is now going to tie in so much better when we later mention ESP. We have a new problem: Three sentences in a row beginning with "Tintin [verb]." I changed our middle sentence from "Tintin has" to "He then has"; I think that fixed it. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
    • No, for your second point there is nothing to fix. We clearly say "after glimpsing a silhouette in the snow" and in the next sentence explain that Tharkey "believes that Tintin saw the Yeti." Maybe I'm missing what you are saying. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Silhouettes can depict lots of things other than people, and, without further clarification, this statement suggests that the silhouette is of the cave rather than of a human-like figure. How about "after glimpsing what seems to be a human silhouette in the snow"? Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Ah, so I was missing what you were saying! Thanks for the clarification. I see now exactly what you mean, and I agree. I see that the extra words do not appear draw any energy at all, they add it. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The word "whilst" seems unnecessarily formal in a place where "while" will do.
    • Fixed. Please consider, however, that in North America, where you and I live, this word is considered formal as you say, but this article is written in UK English. Wiktionary does not use the word "formal" when defining this word in UK English, so it may not be considered the way you think. Regardless, I have changed it. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • As a native speaker of British English, I don't think that it matters much if we replace "whilst" with "while"; they are synonyms anyway. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Thank-you, Midnightblueowl; as I suspected, either one would work, so the change wasn't necessary, but it is fine this way too. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be good to be more explicit about how Tintin and Haddock are saved when climbing the cliff wall.
    • No. You're asking me again to add more plot synopsis, after I worked hard to condense the prose. This particular suggestion of yours is unreasonable; any attempt to solve it would result in a clumsy and less powerful synopsis, as we clearly state that Tharkey has returned (so that is how they were saved). Besides, even Hergé skips the part about Tharkey actually climbing up and rescuing them; it's obvious that he does and as it's not in the story there is no plot to explicitly summarise. However, I notice we didn't clearly say Tharkey had previously abandoned them, which was made clear in the plot. If we carefully add that to the synopsis, then this should add more impact to Tharkey's return and should achieve the solution your instincts feel is missing. I have changed the previous sentence from "and continues on with the Captain" to "and continues on with only the Captain". What do you think? Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The phrase "who has returned" is only marginally shorter than "who returns and rescues them". This seems like a key plot development that would be confusing to readers to omit. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed, however not the way you asked. No, we don't see that happening in the story, so it would be wrong to summarise it, as I said. Please carefully check the things you want; I believe you overreach a little. Getting back to my idea, a little earlier in the plot synopsis, what do you think about even further expressing that Tharkey has left by changing "and convinces him to abandon his friend" to "and convinces him to abandon his friend and return with him to Nepal"? Does that solve the issue you raised? Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • It doesn't. The book doesn't show exactly how Tharkey rescues Tintin and Haddock, but it shows Tintin and Haddock in a state of being returned to safety. How would you feel about rewording the sentence about losing the tent as follows: "Once they are out of immediate danger, their circumstances force them to trek onwards because they have lost their tent and are therefore unable to sleep lest they freeze. They arrive within sight of the Buddhist monastery of Khor-Biyong before collapsing from exhaustion."? I find the present wording and juxtaposition of these sentences very confusing, and I think many other readers would find it so as well. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Fixed, however not the way you asked. "Onwards because they have lost their tent and are therefore..."? That's terrible. But I do respect that you believe that we have not solved the problem, so by all means let's solve it. I returned to your previous, better, suggestion and believe I improved it without sacrificing integrity, and I also added a bit of transition to the sentence following. I have changed it to, "alerting Tharkey, "who has returned in time to rescue them. They try to camp for the night but lose their tent and must trek onwards..." Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The phrase "Hergé came to realise that retracing old ground would be a step backward" suggests that he was right in his belief, but we aren't in a place to make that call. I recommend rewording to "Hergé came to believe that..."
    • Fixed, in the way you suggest. That's a fair observation. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is M. Boullock A Disparu commonly known in English as The Disappearance of Mr Boullock? That is not a direct translation of the French title, and it also differs from the English title given on the Jacques Van Melkebeke article (Mr. Boullock's Disappearance).
    • Fixed. Good Tintinophile call, there. The Melkebeke article has it right; it's Mr. Boullock's Disappearance, according to a reliable Tintin source (Peeters 2012). Midnightblueowl originally added the incorrect English title in 2011, but only because the only available source then (Lofficier 2002) actually published the incorrect English title. I never noticed this in my research and copy editing. I checked for other occurrences of this kind of error but I believe this was the last. (Funny note: I remember, while editing this article, fixing what someone called the "Truth of Light" Award. Similar kind of "backwards is forwards" thing.) Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the phrase "Bernard Heuvelmans, a cryptozoologist who had helped him envision...", the word "him" is ambiguous. I recommend switching around the words "him" and "Hergé" in this sentence for clarity.
    • Fixed. Good call, easy fix. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The article characterizes the option to not leave his wife as being in keeping with Scout Law, so stating that "In the end, Hergé decided to follow the Scout Law: 'A scout smiles and sings through all his difficulties'" is very confusing as a sentence to preface the statement that he decided to leave his wife. I recommend simply removing this sentence; the three words "In the end" can be added to the subsequent sentence.
    • No. I see the point you are making, but unbelievably or not, this last scout reference is fact and is documented in multiple sources (I believe Hergé stated it in the Numa Sadoul interview). I believe it means he fell back on what was familiar; a Scout Law, even as he was probably breaking another Scout Law in the process by leaving his wife. I understand it is conflicting; I'm sure it was very conflicting for Hergé. I'm not deleting prose in a futile attempt to change reality. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I am not attempting to change reality; I am indicating that the prose is unclear. Starting this sentence with the words "In the end" suggests that this sentence will be the one to indicate whether or not Hergé decided to leave his wife, but it is not. "In the end" would be a more appropriate beginning for the subsequent sentence. The quotation about following the Scout Law would be much less confusing after the sentence about leaving his wife, and phrased "While believing that he was breaking the Scout's word of honour to Germaine, he believed that he was following the Scout Law..." Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree on this point; I think Neelix's proposed wording is a little clearer and is more encylopedic, if perhaps a little less engaging, in general tone. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Fixed. I returned to your first idea and have simply cut the sentence, "Hergé decided to follow the Scout Law: "A scout smiles and sings through all his difficulties" and moved "In the end" as you suggest. We have lost some encyclopedic content and I appreciate your attempt to try and keep it, but it's better to just cut it. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It would be good to have brief explanations of who certain people are when they are mentioned, such as Harry Thompson, Raymond de Becker, and Michael Farr. "A collaborator of Hergé's, Jacques Van Melkebeke..." is a good example of how to do this.
    • Fixed. I think I was subconsciously concerned about this, thank-you for forcing me to deal with it. I added "entertainment producer and author" before Harry Thompson, "his former editor" before Raymond de Becker (Hergé is then immediately mentioned), "reporter and British Tintin expert" before Michael Farr. Note that I am avoiding the mostly undocumented term "Tintinologist". I already had "interviewer" describing Numa Sadoul, "collaborator" describing Jacques Martin and Jacques Van Melkebeke as you said, "Belgian Tintin expert" for Philippe Goddin, "biographer" Benoit Peeters, "biographer" Pierre Assouline, "literary critic" Jean-Marie Apostolidès, "literary analyst" Tom McCarthy, and "members of the Studios" is said before mentioning Hergé's most important collaborator Bob de Moor. Jean-Marc Lofficier and Randy Lofficier are mentioned without introduction, but they appear near the top of the Critical Analysis section so perhaps it is obvious they are critics. I believe that's all of them; the three you pointed out were the only ones that needed this. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Calling Lobsang Rampa a "discredited author" sounds like a teaser. A short footnote explaining the nature of the discrediting would be helpful.
    • Fixed. Note: The Tintin source inserted the word "unfortunately" before mentioning that Hergé read Lobsang Rampa, then inserted their footnote, so your suggestion is on track. This sentence has a new footnote with a new source citation. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "He thought it an ode to friendship" should read "He thought of it an ode to friendship".
    • No, not really. And your way may need an "as". This way is grammatically correct and shorter, and in fact, this phrase is from Assouline. (I'm not identifying it as a quote though, as I need the quote marks in the phrase following.) Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "writers on the art of the comics medium"? How is this different from literary critics?
    • OK. The writers on the art of comics, specifically Hergé's Adventures of Tintin, are the biographers Assouline, Peeters, Farr, and Godin (Assouline and Peeters being slightly more scholarly than Farr and Godin, who are more popular via their colourful coffee table books). Others, such as McCloud, write more generally about the comics medium. The literary critics are Apostolidès and McCarthy; their topic is not comics or Hergé but literary analysis, using Tintin as their vehicle to guide discussion. Thompson is a pop lit entertainment writer and Lofficier & Lofficier wrote a Tintin information anthology. I hope this answers your question. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • "Writers on the art of the comics medium" seems unnecessarily clunky to me. Why not just say "literary critics and Hergé's biographers"? Someone who writes generally about the comics medium is a literary critic; comics are just as much literature as Shakespeare's plays. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Comics, like film, is a hybrid medium, which can incorporate literary elements, or not (see abstract comics). You could say "comics critics" or "writers on comics". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Thank-you, Curly Turkey; I would be interested in your thoughts on the solution I came up with. Neelix, if the current prose is clunky then by all means let's actually improve it. What I was going for was critics of all kinds have reviewed Tintin, from the stuffy to the popular. You should not cut the word "art". Of course I agree with what you said about Tintin comics; you're preaching to the choir here. How about this; I have changed it to: "Tintin in Tibet was well received by literary scholars and writers on the art of comics"? Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Well, the obvious issue of not cutting the word "art" is: does "art" refer to the artform or the artwork? I suppose "writers on the comics artform" is an option? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Or something like "Tintin in Tibet was well-received by critics not only in comics circles but literary ones" etc. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 03:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
              • I like both of those. I got the idea for the term "literary scholar" from the dust jacket of Apostolidès. Neelix, which is your preference? Prhartcom (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
                • Curly Turkey's last recommendation ("not only in comics circles...") seems like the best idea thus far, although it suggests that comics or graphic novels critics are not literary critics, and I know a lot of graphic novel professors and graduate students who would respond angrily to that suggestion. How would you feel about the similar "Tintin in Tibet was well-received by graphic novel critics as well as other literary critics."? Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • I know the type. They're as obnoxious as the "comics artist" twats who object to being called "cartoonists". If they have issues with it, they should get themselves a shrink. Film critics don't have these issues, nor do real comics critics. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • How about "comics and literary critics"? You could parse that as "critics of both comics and literature", or "critics of comics and critics of literature", and let those with issues chose to interpret the why that best satisfies their fragile little egos. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • Sorry for being a pissy bitch, but I'm one who enjoys both literature and comics; when I want literature, I pick up a novel; when I pick up comics, it's because I want to experience the particular aesthetic pleasures that the comics medium delivers (ditto painting, music, film). I don't read comics as a substitute for literature any more than I listen to music as a substitute for literature. Claiming comics as a subgenre of literature is factually wrong, and ignores comics' strengths as a medium. Many great comics aren't particularly literary (or at least their strengths aren't in their literary aspects), and many "literary" comics are plain garbage. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 05:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
                    • I think that "comics and literary critics" is a pretty good option here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
                      • That works for me. I would prefer "comics critics and other literary critics", as I don't agree with Curly Turkey that comics are not literature, but I won't press the point here; it's a minor quibble for an article that doesn't really need to get into the debate. Neelix (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
                        • Fixed. I am certainly no comics expert but find myself agreeing with Neelix that comics are indeed literature (they are in the GA and FA literature category, after all) and would enjoy hearing more about graphic novel professors, however of course comics are also a separate genre as Curly Turkey says, just as film and music are. I have changed it to "was well received by comics critics and other literary scholars" which is similar to what Neelix and Midnightblueowl suggest, without redundancy, with the point-counterpoint rhythm that I wish to keep. We probably haven't heard the last of this. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
                          • "comics critics and other literary scholars" again places "comics" as a subset of literature; there's certainly no consensus in the world that that is the case, and Wikipedia can't simply state it as a fact. How about "critics from the comics and literary fields"? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
                            • Fixed. "Tintin in Tibet was well received by critics from the comics and literary fields." I like it. Prhartcom (talk) 23:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Who produced the poll in which Tintin in Tibet was "voted the best French-language graphic novel ever done in a poll of professionals, editors, and critics"?
    • OK, good question. Lofficier mentions it and then gives no further detail. Their actual quote: "Tintin in Tibet is arguably the best book in the series; it was, in fact, voted the best French-language graphic novel ever done in a poll of professionals, editors, and critics. The reasons for that are ..." Note that they go on to say, "The book reaches a degree of perfection, both in its story and in its stunning art, that has rarely been equaled, before or since." Pretty strong. If you insist, we could swap this sentence for the other. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I would strongly recommend switching these pieces of information. Wikipedia should not cite irretrievable studies. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. I'm glad I gave you something to strongly recommend that I swap it with. ;-) It's all good; I like this new way much better. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In the phrase "Given that the book was translated...", "the book" is ambiguous, as the most recently named book is The Castafiore Emerald.
    • Fixed. Replaced "the book" with "Tintin in Tibet". Good catch. Hopefully it's okay that the word "Tibet" is then redundantly mentioned further down. Note: A reviewer above didn't like "Given that", so I replaced it with "As". Please comment on this and check my work. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The "foundling" and "moira" Wiktionary links have better internal-link analogues; the Child abandonment and Moirai articles would be good alternative targets respectively.
    • Fixed. I appreciate that; I had looked but not hard enough, apparently. I see that, while these are not as perfect a match as the pure dictionary definitions, the words "foundling" and "moira" are there in bold in the lead sections of the respective articles, so these are perfectly appropriate wikilinks that stay within the encyclopedia. That's great. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Question: A reviewer above suggested I change "moira" to "moira [fate]". I haven't done it. What are your thoughts? Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't have a strong opinion on this matter; including it might make it more easily readable for some readers, but might suggest that moira is just a synonym for fate. I don't think it's a big deal either way, and I wouldn't object if it was added. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The quotations by Apostolidès are long in excess when taken together, and two of them are not integrated into the prose. I recommend paraphrasing or removing those two quotations.
    • No. His quotations are not as long as Lofficier in the previous paragraph, so why pick on him? And those sentences are so integrated; they each support the assertion made in the prior sentence. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • A good general rule is to not have adjacent sentences that include direct quotations. Most of the prose should paraphrase the sources rather than quote them directly. I don't mean to pick on Apostolidès specifically; the Lofficier paragraph could use a similar treatment. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. I agree with that general rule; it sounds sensible. I have cut "For both Chang and Tintin, the Tibetan adventure is a series of abandonments" and it's reference and I have ensured that no quote is immediately followed by another quote at the start the next sentence. It seems to be better this way; Tintin and Chang are now mentioned immediately before the quote about "the heroes"; I'm guessing this solved the problem your instincts sensed. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I think we may be miscommunicating on this point. As far as I can tell, every sentence in the Apostolidès includes a direct quotation, and most include multiple direct quotations. It is a standard expectation for academic writing to space direct quotations with at least a full sentence bereft of direct quotations; at least half of the sentences in a given paragraph should not include direct quotations at all. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Please allow me to get back to you on this. You are making a good point, Neelix, and I want the fix to be correct. Midnightblueowl, could you please help me on this one point? I would really appreciate it. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
              • This is an issue on which I find myself supportive of Prhartcom's position; I do not think that the quotation here is excessive, and I am unsure if it is prohibited or even discouraged under Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt to cut it down further; I have completely removed the quotation from the first of the three sentences, and hope that it still contains the meaning that Apostolides originally intended (which is often quite vague and wishy-washy, but I guess that's just what you get when a literary critic talks psychoanalysis!). Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I recommend following WP:SAID more closely; words such as "opined" should be replaced with more neutral terms.
    • No. I know WP:SAID, and I believe it is followed closely throughout the article. There is nothing wrong with opined; it implies that Assouline is stating his opinion, which he is, and this synonym of "said" is not one of the numerous examples listed at WP:SAID to be cautious of. I will resist any suggestion to homogenize good writing in the name of conformity. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Similarly to the Apostolidès paragraph, the paragraphs of quotations by McCarthy, Assouline, and Peeters contain too much text devoted to direct quotations. These paragraphs can use both paraphrasing and shortening.
    • No. This is the Critical Analysis section; it is supposed to be quote heavy as it describes and then showcases the actual analysis. See every other Tintin article that has reached FA or GA, or any number of other examples in Wikipedia. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Critical analysis sections are supposed to be opinion-heavy, not direct-quotation-heavy. Encyclopedic writing intersperses direct quotations with original prose. I know it is only an essay, but the Wikipedia essay on quotations recommends that we should "intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations". Whether or not this problem was identified in previous FACs, this concept is standard in academic writing. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • OK, this article now intersperses direct quotations with original prose. As we have made a few changes, per above, I am hopeful this point has been adequately addressed. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Please see my response above in the Apostolidès case. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The phrase "the sadness the Yeti experienced at the story's end reflected Hergé's feelings about his breakup with Germaine" suggests that Hergé and Germaine had separated before the completion of Tintin in Tibet, but such is not the case. Perhaps "Hergé's feelings about his failing marriage" would be more appropriate; I don't have access to the relevant source to know what Peeters had in mind, but I assume that he understood the chronology.
    • No. It pains me to say this, but it doesn't sound like you understood the chronology. Hergé left Germaine during production, and doing so gave him the strength to finish the project, as stated in the article. He divorced her sometime after that. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • My apologies; I don't know why I thought the chronology was otherwise. The word "breakup" still seems odd to me in this context, as it connotes a dating relationship. Is it the word that is used in the sources? How would you feel about rewording to "his separation from Germaine"? Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Hmm. I see what you mean about that word. Midnightblueowl, an extremely valuable, capable, and prolific editor, added it, and I see that it does not appear in the source—"separation" does. Good call. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks for making this change. Now that the word "separation" is used, the next word should be "from" rather than "with" in order to be grammatically correct. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Corrected; many thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The Thompson quotation in Note C is not really an aside, and would do better as normal paragraphical text in the article.
    • No. The reason I didn't do that was because the message it brings is contrary to the main narrative the sources present and I reflect in the main text. The narrative at this point tells the story of Hergé's sensible decision to conquer his fear and his guilt and rescue Tintin in Tibet. The fact that he broke a few eggs in the process, i.e. essentially being hypocritical to the Scout Law and hurtful to Germaine, is the aside. It does not assert what the main text asserts ("Man Conquers Circumstances") but instead asserts, or rather admits, something contrary ("Man Hurts Woman"), and I instinctively knew not to muddle the narrative by directly including it. For completeness and humanitarian purposes, however, it is included. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • That is exactly the problem, and a significant one. Encyclopedia articles do not present facts selectively in order to portray events in a chosen light. "Man Conquers Circumstances" and "Man Hurts Woman", as you call them, should be presented equally in the text, and not doing so results in a biased article. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I am not rewriting the article. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I am not asking you to rewrite the article; I am asking you to move a sentence from the footnote to the main text of the article. The article is biased on this point, and your response suggests that this bias is intentional. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
            • This is mostly just a difference on personal opinion, with both of you making fair points, neither of which are explicitly right or wrong. Personally, I incline towards Neelix's position, but that is because I don't much like Notes in Wiipedia articles anyway, and would choose to use them sparingly. Are there any Wikipedia policies explicitly dealing with the issue of how and when to use Notes ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
            • Fixed. No, it's not a problem with Notes (which are perfectly fine). I realised that Neelix is right about being biased. Even better, I realised he is right about how easy this is to fix. I don't want to be part of a biased article and in my defense I must have been looking for a consistency, which caused me to be led in mostly one direction. I have moved that note into the main text; this passage now has Farr's point of view (pointing one way) followed by Thompson's point of view (pointing the other way) followed by Goddin's point of view (pointing the first way again), and I have removed the phrase about the Scout Law. Is this better? I am amazed and excited to realise that we were able to avoid some bias and achieve some neutrality so easily. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Per Wikipedia's guidelines on linking, links should not appear in quotations (such as the one about Sarrasine).
    • OK, sometimes I wonder about you Neelix, as you just told me above to keep links that appear in a quote ("foundling" and "moira", same quote, too). Don't worry, I am keeping them. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I would recommend adding more images to the article, as it is currently fairly text-heavy. There are images of Apostolidès and Assouline available that could be added to the "Critical analysis" section and of Tovey to add to the "Adaptations" section, for example.
    • Fixed. I have wanted to add more images for a long time and knew about the images of the two authors you mentioned, but wasn't sure the Assouline image was good enough. I decided to add it, though, as your suggestion. The Apostolidès image is so boring I could barely bring myself to add it to the Apostolidès article. Same boringness with the Tovey image. I wish I could add this brilliant non-free Tovey image: [19] Another Tintin biographer Benoit Peeters has a nice free image, but it has already appeared in the Critical Analysis section of practically every Tintin article to reach GA or FA. I don't need to tell you that it is extremely difficult to get Tintin images into a Tintin article as the topic is a visual medium yet the images of the subject are copyrighted. Let me know if you like the Assouline image that has now been added. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes, the Assouline image looks good. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It is my impression that linking to Google Books is generally discouraged, partially because the ISBN links provide more diverse options, including Google Books. I think the citations would be more functional without the Google Books links.
    • OK, I am interested, but skeptical; I think I see what you are saying but I was simply looking at it as more access to information. (Perhaps some people think they don't like Google.) Can you provide an essay, guideline, or policy on this? Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I tend to think that this is in fact poorer access to information, because the ISBN links do a much better job allowing people to engage with the book in the way they see fit rather than streamlining them to a predefined resource (which I wouldn't recommend as the default anyway). I haven't managed to find an essay, guideline, or policy on this matter, so I won't push my opinion on this point. I may attempt to have a guideline put in place at some point. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • OK. I am interested if you ever want to get back to me on this. I never knew the Google Books links were bad. Did you notice that I trimmed each URL so that it would not result in a close-up of a random page with random highlighting but instead gives the book overview. I just now randomly picked three Featured Articles and all three happened to have Google Books links (one was a recent promotion). I think it's fair to say this is not a FA requirement. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the source reputable? I question it because it isn't used to source any content, and because it describes itself as a fan site.
    • OK, you are "going there"? Okay, let's go there. You are certainly being thorough; that's great. I have never touched that link, in this or in any Tintin article; I have left it alone out of respect more than anything else. This is more a question I would like to ask you, as this link was added May 2007 in the days you were one of the principle editors who watched the Tintin articles. Why did you allow it then? Since those days, this link has been in every Tintin book article; I believe. I think I have seen other external links to other external Tintin resources come and go, but for some reason this one, the oldest non-Hergé Foundation site, has remained in the Tintin articles. I'm not very familiar with the website, but I believe it is a useful resource for our readers and has legitimate Tintin articles too, as you know, such as Tintin Crosses The Atlantic: The Golden Press Affair and many others (I have that particular one in a bibliography of another Tintin article that needed a reliable source). So, I don't know what your call is, but mine is: Leave it. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • That's fine by me; I was more hoping you had insight into the site's reviewing policies than I do. We link to IMDb in this way all the time, but we don't use it as a source. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You may consider adding alt text to the images, although I believe this isn't a requirement for featured articles anymore. It is helpful for users with visual impairment.
    • OK, why are you raising this when I long ago added the alt text? You could have clicked the Alt Text tool above and seen for yourself. Maybe you are confusing this article for some other article you reviewed. Yes, it is no longer a requirement, as I recently found out while I reviewed another FAC [20] and insisted to them that it be added and was rebuffed. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • My apologies; I don't know why the alt text isn't coming up when I mouse over the images. It may be the computer I am currently using. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Try the Alt Text tool; it's right there. Try Preferences Gadgets "Navigation popups, article previews and editing functions popup when hovering over links". Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • After the first instance of referring to a person, men are referred to in this article consistently by their surnames, but the women are sometimes referred to solely by their given names. In particular, it would be more consistent to refer to Fanny Vlaminck by her surname in instances after the first rather than simply as "Fanny".
    • Fixed. That's an astute observation. What does it say about me, or anyone that reviewed, that no one noticed this before now? Here is what I have done: There is a passage after Fanny Vlaminck is first mentioned that compared Fanny to Germaine. I have left the first names there. Elsewhere, "Fanny" was mentioned two more times, and for both of those I changed it to "Fanny Vlaminck" (rather than just the surname) and I believe it works very well; please check and see. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Question: After all that, we mention Fanny one more time, as "Fanny Rodwell". By now, she has married Nick Rodwell and her name has changed. Do you think we need to do anything here? Do we need "(née Vlaminck)"? Will readers recognise this is the same Fanny? Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm glad you raise this point! I meant to previously and forgot. How would you feel about adding a footnote indicating that she married Nick Rodwell and changed her name? Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Note and citations to two sources (one new) has been added. I heard that eyebrows raised when she married him. Prhartcom (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that this article gives such a uniformly positive depiction of Hergé's separating from his wife; normally, we have the opposite problem (that an article will uniformly negatively depict a person's separation from their spouse for someone else). Did all of Hergé's critics, biographers, and contemporaries praise Hergé for this decision? If not, I recommend adding some other reactions for balance.
    • Yes, pretty much quite literally, all of Hergé's critics, biographers, and contemporaries praised Hergé for this decision while covering this human drama. This is what I meant while trying to explain about the "main narrative" and the "scout law" above. I believe I have covered the topic of Tintin in Tibet quite adequately and won't be adding whole paragraphs or sections or go into any more in-depth explanations. I hope this sounds reasonable to you and I hope my firmness doesn't stand in the way of your Support. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I think this can be discussed above. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Did we hopefully solve it above? I'll know if you cross this one out. I like this observation you made about normally we have the opposite problem in articles and find it facinating. Prhartcom (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
          • I greatly appreciate your fixes above; they neutralize the article's treatment of the subject considerably. I have visited some of the source texts and I have two recommendations of additions that might flesh out the section further. 1) Peeters indicates on page 280 of Hergé, Son of Tintin that Germaine made a scene in public on several occasions in which she berated Hergé and Fanny Vlaminck and complained loudly of the way they were treating her, and even started stalking them. The article at present doesn't indicate any averse reaction on Germaine's part, and including this information might clarify why Hergé's inner turmoil became so severe. 2) Assouline indicates on page 185 of Hergé: The Man Who Created Tintin that Vlaminck was a catalyst for transitioning Hergé away from his Judeo-Christian upbringing and towards the morality and philosophy of Taoism. At present, the article indicates that Hergé resisted leaving his wife because of both "his Catholic upbringing and Boy Scout ethic", and the way he dealt with the Boy Scout ethic is explained later on, but there is no explanation of how he dealt with the Catholic upbringing; adding the information about Vlaminck and Taoism should tie up this loose end. With those two inclusions, I think this section will be well-balanced. Neelix (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
            • No. I know about both of those events and many other remarkable things in la monde de Tintin; my copies of the book sources in the bibliography happen to contain several paper bookmarks, and two of them are to the pages you mention above; I had decided those facts do not need to clutter this article about Tintin in Tibet. By the way, you say we resolve Hergé's Boy Scout ethic later on, apparently forgetting what is still fresh in my mind: you asked me to remove all that, so no, we don't. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
              • Well, this is interesting: "Germaine made a scene in public on several occasions"—was this contemporary to Tintin in Tibet? If it's something that happened a decade later, I'd keep it out, but if it happened while Hergé was working on the book, I think it should be mentioned in passing. I don't know about the Taoism stuff—how deep was the interest? Did it have an on Hergé's composition of Tintin in Tibet? If not, then I'd call it trivia at the scope of this article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
                  • I'm inclined toward Curly's view here that this is trivia and not really of the utmost importance to the article in question. But I am open to being convinced otherwise. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This article was a pleasure to read. In general, is well-written and well-researched. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments above. Neelix (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you, Neelix, for your review! Your good ideas are extremely valuable and have already made the article better. I will respond to any comments or questions you have for me. Thank-you, as well, for your complements! As you can tell, I am so pleased and honoured that you were able to take the time in what must be a busy schedule to make this review a part of your administrative (and Tintin) duties! We'll talk again soon. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the fixes, changes, and responses thus far! I have struck the points that you have either addressed or demonstrated as not needing addressing. I look forward to discussing the remaining matters with you further. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Neelix, and thank you Prhartcom for responding to them in such a thorough manner! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate both of your responses and alterations. I have struck more of the concerns you have addressed, and there are only a few remaining. Of them, I am most concerned about the ones regarding Hergé's separation from his wife. The placement and wording with respect to the Scout Law, as well as the subjugation of the Thompson quotation to a footnote, both serve to bias the article on this point, and the responses and lack of responses to these concerns have suggested that this bias is intentional. I think highly of the work you have done in developing this article and I think it almost feature-worthy, but I will certainly oppose giving the article featured status if the prose remains biased in this way. Neelix (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Tintin in Tibet article looks pretty good in WikiWand. Thanks to Brigade Piron who first added the free picture to this article a few months ago; WikiWand appears to place only free pictures in an article's top header. Prhartcom (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am impressed by your sustained willingness to think about this article critically and make any necessary improvements. I have struck all but two of my concerns; all that remains is the concern regarding WP:QUOTEFARM and my recommendation of two missing relevant pieces of information. Neelix (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank-you for that; I am grateful while not surprised at your thoroughness; when I invited you here, I knew you were an expert, a scholar, and a fan of Tintin; three attributes that would come in handy to improve this article even more. You have made a few mistakes, I believe, in your review of this material, where no others have, but I believe those are excusable and expected when such thoroughness is executed like no other, so I remain happy, and besides I have made mistakes too. As long as the article is improved in the process. Prhartcom (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

all things[edit]

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

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

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

SMS Scharnhorst[edit]

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

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Image review[edit]

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

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

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

Support Comments

  • Don't know why you should put the exact tonnage in the lede, but if you want it, it needs to be hyphenated as a compound adjective.
    • Yeah, I don't know why I did that either. Just removed it entirely.
  • Link magazines and define "machinery spaces" a bit better for ordinary readers. And conning tower.
    • Done.
  • Add something specifying that Glasgow was under Cradock's command.
    • It's in the following paragraph.
  • Otherwise looks pretty good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Drop the tonnage in the lead sentence, totally unnecessary given the tonnage is covered in the first section
    • Done, see above.
  • "who recalled the attacks of foreigners" "on foreigners"?
    • Good catch.
  • suggest "On 13 April, the ships went on a month-long cruise in Japanese waters, returning to Tsingtao on 13 May."
    • Sounds good to me
  • "secondary 15 cm guns" convert template needed
    • It's converted earlier in the article - I only convert on the first instance.
  • the maps of the East Asia Squadron and the map of the Falkland Islands deployments need to be bigger, 250px perhaps
    • Heh, I have my default set at 300px so I didn't even think of that.
  • alt text is required for all images
    • As far as I'm aware alt text isn't a requirement at FAC, but I've added it nonetheless.
      • Not having a crack at you personally, but when would it be a requirement then? Not at ACR? Not at FAC? If WP doesn't require alt text for its best articles, that is a half-arsed sick joke, and it should dispense with the idea completely. Accessibility is important. I have a kid with special needs, and I find it ridiculous that accessibility is absolutely required for tables at FLC (and I have the scars to prove it), but not for images at FAC? WP needs to get its shit together on accessibility. Rant over. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
        • As far as I recall, it was a requirement several years ago, but a lot of people were upset about it (for whatever reason) and it was withdrawn as a formal requirement - I seem to think the problem was no one could decide what exactly was useful as alt text. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Scharnhorst2 is probably redundant, given there is a contemporaneous pic in the infobox at high speed
  • A bit surprised there are no mentions of her successor battleship
    • Added a bit on this.
  • there are no redirects to this article, I would think "German cruiser Scharnhorst" would be a very reasonable redirect
    • Added
  • suggest adding refbegin and refend templates to References section
    • I don't generally like using them unless the ref section is excessively large - I'd say it's fine as is.
  • ISBNs are fine, no need for OCLC as well
    • Removed

Great article, a few tweaks needed, but looking very good. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
No prob. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

2002 Pacific typhoon season[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks a lot for the review! It's good to get specific comments on the article instead of an abstract argument. I hope I addressed your concerns here properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the dates of the storms be taken from the JMA best track. There are a few that use JTWC dates or that are incorrect. Supportstorm (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I have no issues with this being considered a Featured Article.--12george1 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. But I think is better using "Renminbi" to replace "Chinese yuan" at Note 4.--Jarodalien (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Luo Yigu[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your interesting comment, Madalibi. I am far from being an expert in Chinese transliteration, although Pantsov and Levine, whose biography of Mao is the most up-to-date and thoroughly researched available in the English language, renders her name as "Luo Yigu", and thus I have followed their example. I thus presume that that is the Pinyin name, and that there is therefore a mistake in the article, which I have now corrected. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Midnightblueowl, and sorry for not getting back to you sooner. The Chinese characters 一秀 are unambiguously pronounced "Yixiu", not "Yigu", so this is not a simple pinyin mistake. The French, Norwegian, and Swedish pages have "Luo Yixiu", whereas the Ripuarian page and the Bahasa Indonesian page (whose biography is copied on that of the English page) have Luo Yigu. A Google search for "Luo Yigu" leads to Wikipedia and mirror pages, whereas a search for "Luo Yixiu," leads to many pages on Mao's first wife that are not based on Wikipedia. Based on this, I'd say "Luo Yigu" is most likely a mistake. If you have access to Pantsov and Levine's book, could you check their index carefully to see what they say about Luo's name, or whether they explain why they call her Luo Yigu instead of Luo Yixiu? That way we can clarify this unusual issue! And how do the other books call her? Madalibi (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Oddly, Ross Terrill in his Mao: A Biography (1980), Clare Hollingworth in her Mao and the Men Against Him (1985), and Lee Feigon in his Mao: A Reinterpretation (2002), don't actually mention her name. Jung Chang and John Halliday in their (deeply problematic) book, Mao: The Untold Story (2005) describe her only as "Woman Luo" and do not use her personal name. However, in their book, Mao: The True Story (2012), Pantsov and Levine very explicitly refer to her as "Luo Yigu" with no mention at all made of "Luo Yixiu"; they do not clarify why they use this spelling, and their referencing on this issue links back to Edgar Snow's original Red Star Over China as well as to several Chinese-language sources. A perplexing issue, but I shall try to consult a copy of another authoritative text, Philip Short's biography of Mao, over the coming week. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've checked, and Philip Short simply refers to her as "Miss Luo". Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
@Midnightblueowl: Thank you for looking into this issue, and sorry for being out of touch for so long! What you tell us means that we have four different names on our hands: Luo Yigu, Luo Yixiu, Woman Luo, and Miss Luo. The last two are translations of Luo shi 罗氏 ("[woman] surnamed Luo"), in which shi means family name, as Chinese women did not (and still do not) adopt their husband's surname after marriage. The fact that Short and Chang & Halliday both refer to her as "Luoshi" probably means that her personal name is not well known. Note, however, that the difference between "Yixiu" and "Yigu" is not a difference in spelling. Yixiu and Yigu are Romanizations of different characters. Yixiu is 一秀, whereas Yigu would probably be 一姑, in which gu 姑 means "girl". I must admit I have no idea how to handle this kind of issue. Could we readjust the lead and the relevant sections to say that different sources refer to her by different names (ironically, we're still missing a reliable source for Luo Yixiu)? And could we, without falling into original research, state that most biographies of Mao do not even give her last name? Madalibi (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Reasonable sources for Luo Yixiu are not lacking, and it is important to get this right, especially if "Yigu" is more a generic term than a personal name, as Madalibi suggests. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I have requested that an academic friend of mine contact Steven Levine directly (his professional email address can be found here) to see if the Sinologist (as co-author of Mao: The True Story) might be able to shed some light on this particular issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Future Science Fiction and Science Fiction Stories[edit]

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

Comments from Dank[edit]

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

Comments from Ian Rose[edit]

Recusing myself from coord duties to review as I have a FAC open myself and, besides, I've always enjoyed the history of the sf mags...

  • A very light copyedit from me, tribute no doubt to Mike's prose skills plus Dan getting in before me. ;-)
  • I think the justification for doing a two-in-one article is valid, especially given the titles were even interchangeable!
  • Structure and referencing seen fine to me.
  • Happy to defer to Nikki on the source formatting, and reliability isn't in question.
  • I might let one of the regular image reviewers check media licensing, so will offer provisional support in the meantime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

AI Mk. IV radar[edit]

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

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

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

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

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


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

Comments from Jamesx12345

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

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

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


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

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

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

  • Sorry for the delay, but I've been distracted by a cross-country move.
  • There was only one Blenheim II built, an unsuccessful reconnaissance variant, so none were available to be converted into IIFs. Also, the conversion into the F model wasn't experimental at all.
Both Brown and White call it a II. Is there the possibility that the single unit was converted to NF use?
Possible; as my really thorough book on the Blenheim is packed away, I really can't say that it didn't happen.
  • Provide a conversion for 20 mm on first use and five miles.
20mm is a name not a dimension, five miles converted.
In this case, it's not a name at all, but it is a measurement and so needs to be converted. If you'd used 20 mm Hispano cannon, I'd have accepted that as the link is equivalent to the conversion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure that Dowding's rejection of non-AI methods to defeat the Blitz led to his dismissal, but it's been years since I read up on that part of the BoB.
Directly stated in Zimmerman, White and several other sources. Occurred immediately after he dismissed the second of the two night fighting reports.
Fair enough; I can't say for sure one way or another.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Rephrase this The Germans were beginning their attacks in the east to state that they were preparing for the invasions of Yugoslavia, Greece, and Russia as well as committing aircraft to the Western Desert.
Details of the Luftwaffe's order of battle are well covered elsewhere. As all of these are east of UK, I'm not sure more detail is warranted.
Maybe so, but I think that you're making an unwarranted assumption. You needn't list all of the operations causing the withdrawals, but you need to do something in case a bloke starts wondering, "'Ere, what's 'e going on about?"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Link to 604 Squadron and fix capitalization
  • Apostrophe missing Luftwaffes
Awaiting details on technical issue. FIXED.
Now I'm curious what the technical issue was? The triple apostrophe marks when using a possessive with an italicized word?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
double-singles at the start, triple singles at the end. used to work, must have stopped working some time 06/07.
  • This is a little confusing: they would approach at low altitude and then dive again after releasing their bombs, making interceptions with the Mk. IV possible only during the period when the bomber climbed for its bomb run. Move the bit about climbing to the beginning of the sentence to keep the sequencing straight for the reader.
  • This is awkward: During a flight in February 1941 at 20,000 feet (6.1 km) he suddenly awoke in an ambulance on the ground;[121] his oxygen supply had failed. I see no need for the semi-colon, just combine the two sentences as they naturally flow together.
  • superior of the Mk. IV Shouldn't this be "to" rather than "of"?
  • Missing a word: but they had such a low priority the conversions were not complete

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

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

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

  • Make sure that all article and book titles are in title case.
Not exactly, see #108.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why does #29 spell out the info for Brown when it's listed in the Bibliography.
Good question. Removed bib entry.
Should have done it the other way given your rationale below as it's heavily cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wrong Brown :-) This is a Louis.
Right now your links (harv cites?) don't work at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly suggest moving all spelled-out book and article info from the citations to the bibliography. This will allow readers to better access them when you add the necessary OCLC or ISBN number.
I'm not strongly attached to any particular style here, but I have generally followed the rule that if the entry is used more than once it is separated out, otherwise inline.
Understood, but the problem is that it causes problems for the reader if the work isn't linked or provided with a OCLC or ISBN number. For example, how am I supposed to find a copy of the pamphlet cited in #1? Not online and cataloging can be highly idiosyncratic possibly making it hard to find on an independent search of WorldCat or similar database. I'll not insist on moving everything to the bibliography, although I think that that's the best practice for articles, but I will insist on everything that isn't linked online to be provided with OCLC or ISBN number. You've been pretty good about linking things to Google books so it shouldn't be too much work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. What makes #102 and 107 highly reliable?
107 - Given the claim is double-backed it could be removed, but I don't see a point in this case. 102 has been replaced by the original source.
#102: obviously a guy transcribing the official history or operational log. But without some sort of file number or better sourcing, it's nothing more a guy with a computer and fails WP:RS and V. #108: All I see is a college graduate with a website, not a published author. Fails RS outright as I see it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Got one, working the other.
  1. Put the books in alphabetical order. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Done (someone already did it seems).

All refs noted above have been updated to new ones. No idea how to fix the harv, I'm not sure it's even something I did? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

James Chadwick[edit]

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

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

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

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

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

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

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

Comments by Headbomb[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Ian Rose[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I am to physics what whales are to rollerskating, so excuse any howlers in my comments. This, to the layman's eye, is a fine article. I don't understand some of the scientific bits, but I don't need to. The biographical stuff – which is most of the article – is first class. I offer these few comments for the nominators' consideration, and look forward to adding my support thereafter.

  • Education and early life
    • "physics" – perhaps move blue link to the first mention earlier in the para.
    • "within an error of less than 1.5 percent" – the Manual of Style thinks "percent" is American and "per cent" British, and so do I.
  • Cambridge
    • "You are inconsistent about whether or not to use the false title when labelling people: thus, you have "succeeded by the Russian physicist Pyotr Kapitza" with the definite article but "Theoretical physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg" without it. The latter is undesirable in good British English, though good AmEng and beloved of our tabloid newspapers. There are other false titles later in the article, such as "Cosmologist Sir Hermann Bondi", "Prime Minister Winston Churchill" and "New York Times reporter William L. Laurence"
  • Liverpool
    • "the government became more parsimonious with funding for science" – a bit POV, perhaps, especially without a citation. Perhaps, "the government cut back funding for science"
    • "Chadwick responded condescendingly" – unless this is a quote from a source the adverb seems to me to fall foul of WP:EDITORIAL
    • "his 159,917 kr Nobel Prize money" – a Sterling translation would be useful here
    • "Lord Derby" – perhaps a piped link to Lord Derby?
  • Tube Alloys and the MAUD Report
    • "Meitner and her nephew Otto Frisch created an uproar" – this reads rather as though the scientific community was outraged rather than astonished, which I think you probably don't mean to suggest
  • References
    • "Some statements are given as many as four individual citations. To the layman's eye this looks like overkill, but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
    • "Your bibliographic style, though impeccably academic, is not what I usually expect in Wikipedia: I refer to your "— (1932)" style for second and later mentions of authors' names in your list of references. I thought the MoS disapproved of this style, but if it does I can't find it, and so I just mention it and leave it to you to agree or disagree with me.

I hope you can find some useful points in this little batch of quibbles. Tim riley talk 13:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It's always good to meet an editor I haven't encountered before. Thanks very much for your review! I presume that Chadwick is a local hero in Liverpool. Well he out to be. I've addressed all your points.

  • "Percent" makes no sense to me, and my spell checker flags it as an error. The Commonwealth Style Guide says "per cent" is correct. I'm blaming the Wiki-Gnomes.
  • I'd never heard of "false title" before, but have removed them.
  • I did not have much hope of converting kroner to Sterling, but as luck might have it, the kroner was fixed to 19.40 to the pound at the time.
  • What happens with the multiple citations is that one is a secondary source that covers it, and the other three are scientific papers, so the readers can read the details for themselves.
  • By "parsimonious". I didn't mean that they actually cut funding per se; they tightened the eligibility rules. The whole article is cited.
  • If you can find the bit in the MoS that disapproves of the bibliographic style I'll change it.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 61[edit]

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

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

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it is well-written and meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 04:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments reading now - will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd put the length in the lead as it is a pretty integral/key fact
Done, and resisted the urge to editorially point out that the length is ironically the same as the route number. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we have any information on traffic figures? heavy/light traffic issues? any issues with too-heavy traffic? any notable serious accidents?
Nothing that I've seen. Generally only serious pileups on major freeways get mentions (NOTNEWS), and my peer editors often even frown on those. From what I can tell (haven't been to Thunder Bay... yet), it's a pretty tame and average highway. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I hate see also sections - if the film is about the road, then make it a few sentences and reference it.
It doesn't really fit in with the rest of the article, and the movie is about driving 61 from Thunder Bay down through the US... I doubt more than a few scenes, if any, take place in Canada. I usually don't like See also sections myself, but this was a compelling case for its use. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Point taken - I can live with this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
This involved replacing eight bridges, improving sightlines, the addition of five passing lanes and paved shoulders throughout the length of the highway - streamlining the prose would be better...such as "This involved replacing eight bridges, improving sightlines, and adding five passing lanes and paved shoulders throughout the length of the highway"
Used a slight variation of your suggestion. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

All in all, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Outlaw_Bridge.png: not seeing anything in the source to support a 1917 publication for this image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... good eye. I must have just assumed it or made a mistake when I uploaded the image. Regardless, it is public domain in Canada and wouldn't "qualify" for the URAA restoration. Publication isn't required under the old copyright laws that this image fell under, just creation date. I've adjusted the image and licence to suit. - Floydian τ ¢ 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Support per my past review on the ACR. --Rschen7754 06:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

History of KFC[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

ceranthor 21:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Epacris impressa[edit]

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

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

Driveby comment[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

A few comments from CorinneSD[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a little confusing. I think it means:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) In this sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth[edit]

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

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

Comments from Peter coxhead[edit]

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

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

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
  • "The long-pink and short-white races frequently occur in close proximity to each other, in which case the former tends to flower in winter and the latter in spring.": I don't want writers to be self-conscious about perfectly good words they'll sometimes need ... but there are five phrases in one sentence here (occur, proximity, in which case, former, latter) that I'd like to test for tone ... I think they may signal stuffiness to some readers ... and so many at once should probably be flagged (and this is something that can be automated, so I've thrown it into my pile of things to automate). I'm interested in whether this advice comes across as too fussy. (Possible substitute: "When long-pink and short-white races grow close together ...")
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thanks - no, it's a fair comment - I often try to be economical with words and phrases...and it looks like I've gone too far. Adopted Macropneuma's suggestion below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
G’day. … good insights on the two sentences …, IMHO. How about this? (leavening your idea by using a tiny few words bit of my first hand subject matter knowledge of Epacris impressa and plants in general):
"The long-pink and short-white races frequently occur in close proximity to each other. In these mixed populations the former tends to flower in winter and the latter in spring." —--Macropneuma 13:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt[edit]

Very nicely written and quite interesting. A few comments.

The first instance of style links to gynoecium. Style (botany) is a redirect to gynoecium. Am I missing something?--Melburnian (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
No, I guess I missed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "A number of specimens described as separate species" I might put "once" before "described". In view of the heavy use of the term "described" in the paragraph, I might suggest "regarded" here
added "once"...."described" has a specific connotation (see species description), as I don't know how long after they were described that they were considered separate (not long I think), therefore has the right emphasis. Also, "regarded" used almost straight after...and we'd have two regardeds...will see if I can tinker elsewhere... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Variation etc.
  • "there was no incompatibility between them – all populations were compatible" It strikes me that what comes after the dash is implied by what comes before and might be omitted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Melburnian (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Fifth Element[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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