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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Tom Simpson[edit]

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Tom Simpson, one of Britain's most successful professional cyclists. I brought it up to GA back in 2013 and am keen to see it get to FA. It's had a thorough copy edit thanks to Miniapolis over at WP:GOCE. All comment are welcome. Thanks. BaldBoris 17:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

SSX 3[edit]

Nominator(s): BlookerG talk 01:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

SSX 3 is a game I hold pretty dearly to my heart. I grew up playing it, and felt like a suitable way to show my admiration of it would be to get its article up to featured status. The article has already been promoted to GA class, and has also just been through a relatively unsuccessful peer review where I was trying to find any ways to improve it, but I have added some more development info after said GA review. After making some comparisons with another FA class snowboard video game article, 1080° Snowboarding, I'm going to be bold and submit it for a featured article review. Thanks in advance to anyone planning on reviewing this, as your constructive criticism will give me much needed ideas for making this the best article I can possibly achieve. BlookerG talk 01:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Procedural note: This was incorrectly filed as an FAR on May 4, and has been moved here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

R. V. C. Bodley[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the British Army officer, author and journalist. After successfully nominating this article for GA, DYK and A-Class Military History, as well as having a peer review and the infobox image listed as the POTD, I believe this article is ready for FAC. A cash reward is available in exchange for full reviews. Freikorp (talk) 09:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I don't personally have a problem with the cash reward, but all things considered, if you want this FAC to pass, I'd suggest cancelling the reward. This is merely a guess on my part; I don't have experience with rewards such as this one. Besides ... this has passed Milhist's A-class review, so you shouldn't have a problem (and I'll be reviewing shortly). - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (See? That wasn't so bad.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

2012 Budweiser Shootout[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about one of two NASCAR exhibition races held in 2012. The Budweiser Shootout, was won by Kyle Busch, after passing Tony Stewart on the race's final lap. This is my second attempt at FAC for this article, which failed because of issues with prose. Since then, it has undergone a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors to address the concerns from the last time. I gladly welcome all feedback and comments regarding this article. Z105space (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about,Emily Ratajkowski who is an elite bikini model (has appeared in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue for the last two years) and who is best known as the model from the video for "Blurred Lines", which was the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries. The page was viewed 3.2 million times in 2013 and 1.5 million times in 2014. Ratajkowski has parlayed her model buzz into sex symbol status and some movie roles, including a role in Gone Girl. I am hoping for a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in about 13 months from now. After making progress on this article in 2014 (An October WP:GAN, a November WP:PR and a December WP:GOCE), I think this article is moving in the proper direction for a WP:FAC nomination. During and since the first FAC, I feel progress was made toward various concerns.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bollyjeff[edit]

I don't know if I will have time for a full review, but here are some things that I noticed immediately:

I wasn't asking if they are reliable, although since they have been questioned multiple times it would be wise to find an additional/alternate source. I did not see those reviewers saying it was okay after your replies. What I was really talking about though was similar to my comment above. Changing unlinked to linked SheKnows Media can help those that question the reliability of those sources. BollyJeff | talk 21:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes the support for some of the sources is lacking from the reviewers, but no one is pointing to any specifically as not being WP:RS. I would swap out any if I could.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No sources for Andrew's Alteration and A Year and a Day other than IMDB?? Not reliable enough.
    • Is there another industry source for a filmography. I believe that even the most notable actors have filmographies with questionable sourcing like this. I believe that in the case of a filmography this is almost considered a reliable source for this purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Any sources to prove that the website and Twitter accounts cited are indeed her official accounts?
    • Her twitter has the verified accounts emblem on it and that page points to the website that we are claiming is her official website.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Too much info on "Blurred Lines" in the lead, including three mentions by name. This article is about Emily, not a song.
  • 'Rise to fame' section: Begins with "The video". What video? Previous section was titled 'Music video performances', plural. You should add at least one source that actually calls her a sex symbol after the first sentence.
  • I think this would be a better source for the Hot 100 list than the two you current have, no?

More to follow. BollyJeff | talk 15:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Corona Borealis[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This article recently had a nomination that stalled with two supports followed by no activity for a month. This sometimes happens if the prose is on the unengaging side. To that end I asked some editors to take a look at the prosee, and Dr. Blofeld, hamiltonstone and Eric Corbett (thankfully) here we are. Have at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Looks in great condition, can't imagine it being a better article on the subject. A worthy candidate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support. There were a few things I didn't understand in the previous version, but that's all been sorted now. Eric Corbett 12:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

thx both/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed. Thank you Praemonitus (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: It looks good. Here are a few concerns that you might want to address:
  • 'HD 144579' in the infobox is in need of a reference.
I've addressed this. Praemonitus (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "little smaller (0.9) times the diameter of the Sun": the times should be inside the parentheses.
oops, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is actually a complex multiple star system": this is redundant since the article already said it is a multiple star system.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "T Coronae Borealis is a binary star with a red-hued giant primary and a small blue secondary"; the secondary is necessarily a white dwarf, not a small blue star.
yup, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
oops, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Omicron Coronae Borealis is another K-type clump giant": 'clump giant' needs to be linked to Red clump. Where was the previous clump giant?
no idea now, linked and "another" removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "XO-1 is a magnitude 11 yellow dwarf star": this is switching terminology. Is there a reason for changing from the previous mode of listing the classification? Likewise with "a Solar twin, yellow dwarf around".
a lazy cut and paste - aligned them now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "At the cluster's center is a large elliptical galaxy containing a supermassive black hole." Almost every galaxy contains a SMBH; how is this one different? If not, then perhaps list the estimated mass as well.
"most powerful" added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A number of sources say that the Arabic name means "The Broken Dish".
sources aren't great for this, but added anyway, also found another Amerind story Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The constellation appeared several times in the 1997 film Contact. It was apparently a favorite constellation of astronomer Carl Sagan, on whose book the film was based.
I can't find a Reliable Source for this, would love to add it though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
True, unfortunately. Praemonitus (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The references section appears to be in good shape. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


This does not appear semi-circular to me


  • "Its Latin name, inspired by its shape, means "northern crown", as its brightest stars form a semicircular arc" - ummm, some expansion here would be appreciated. Crowns are not semi-circular, and although I can kind of guess what he was going for, it's not entirely obvious. Perhaps these and the other descriptions should be collected in that opening para?
I've not seen a source comment on the problem of it being an incomplete circle. I guess I think of it like that too, i.e. you'd only see part of it if it was on a person's head. Juggling sections can be tricky in these articles as the mythology is often a bit disparate WRT the astronomy. Nothing much in the heavens really looks much like what the constellations are supposed to depict..I guess we're all used to that... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a significant number of duplicate links in the article. This is very useful.
I left some of the star names as it seemed odd not to link them where they are being talked about. Have removed others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • There are a number of redundant cites, where the same cite appears several times in a row in the same para. EG 32. This produces visual clutter for no benefit. A tool for this would be useful...
If I see some in a row I will combine and add a commented out note, like <!-- cites three previous sentences --> so that I can trim refs. Annoyingly those '32's have another ref in between.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Perhaps sections the extrasolar planets? It would break up the page a bit and I don't see any downsides.
yeah, the stars isa big section...done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm still not terribly happy with the lede, which jumps around a lot, and still fails to explain the name. How about something along the lines of"

Corona Borealis /kɵˈroʊnə bɒriˈælɨs/ is a small constellation in the Northern Celestial Hemisphere. It is one of the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd-century astronomer Ptolemy, and remains as one of the 88 modern constellations. Its brightest stars form a semicircular arc in the lower right of the modern constellation boundary.
Its Latin name, inspired by its shape, means "northern crown". In classical mythology Corona Borealis generally represented the crown given by the god Dionysus to the Cretan princess Ariadne and set by him in the heavens. Other cultures likened the pattern to a circle of elders, an eagle's nest, a bear's den, or even a smokehole. Ptolemy also listed a southern partner, Corona Australis, which has a similar pattern.

I believe that is much more clear than the current lede, and easier to read as well. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
yup, I'll pay that and thus adopted Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'll do a complete top-to-bottom some time today. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone. I made some comments after the unsuccessful FAC, in response to a request from Cas, and he has followed up all of those. Pick-ups and suggestions from Praemonitus and Maury all useful, and I'm supportive of the revised article. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - great stuff. The content is all there and the prose manages to be direct and informative without monotony. It'd be nice to have a higher resolution wide-field photo of the constellation, but that's just a passing thought. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line[edit]

Nominator(s): Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a secondary railway line in the United Kingdom. It was built across difficult terrain requiring many tunnels. Lax supervision of the construction of the tunnels meant that a following rectification of the defects discovered, a restricted loading gauge was required for 140 years. during a modernisation scheme in the 1980s, measures were taken to remove the loading gauge restriction. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Anne[edit]

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Severe Tropical Cyclone Anne which affected the island nations of Tuvalu, Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Solomon Islands back in January 1988. I have worked on this article for several months now and feel that now is the time for me to obtain some feedback on it from the community and that its worthy of being an FA.Jason Rees (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Multi-page citations should use "pp." not "p."
  • Ranges should use unspaced endashes not hyphens or emdashes (and check dash usage in article body as well)
    • I ran the [1] dashes script over the article and hope that this is now sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • FN27: URL redirects to another page
    • I have found an archive url of this page and fixed it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in where you include publisher locations, and be more specific than US
  • FN5, 13, 16: page?
    • There were none associated with the news articles when i checked them on Lexis Nexis this morning.Jason Rees (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    • On its own its probably not overly reliable, however, my thought process was that it backs up what the museum was saying and seems to go a little bit further.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments on prose and presentation
  • It seems weird to mention Roy in the first two lines of the article, since—as far as I can tell—the storms had nothing to do with each other.
    • Not sure to be honest since they were twins per the JTWC and if it was today we would probably be finding impact in Kiribati.Jason Rees (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Before" and "after" are collectively used ~17 times in the lead and MH. There's nothing inherently wrong with the words, but the sentence structure they lend itself to do get monotonous.
    • Ive removed one instance and will see what I can do when i get chance.Jason Rees (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Category" should be capitalized to be more in line with the thousand+ other TC articles.
  • During January 12 after the cyclone had turned and started to move towards the south, Cyclone Anne became the most powerful tropical cyclone to affect New Caledonia in 12 years as it made landfall on the French Overseas Territory. - this could simply be "After turning toward the south on January 12, Anne struck New Caledonia, becoming the strongest tropical cyclone to affect the FOT in 12 years."
  • After the cyclone had moved back into the Coral Sea - you never said it was there in the first place...
  • "Within" is used 19 times in the relatively short article (including at the beginnings of three sentences in the second impact of preps/impact). Try to find some different words... in, on, over, throughout, across.
  • torrential rain, flooding and storm surge caused damage to houses, crops, and property - either use the Oxford comma or don't but really, do :P
  • Extensive damage was also recorded on the islands of Vanua Lava and Gaua. Extensive damage was also reported on New Caledonia...

This is all to say that the article needs a fairly extensive copyediting session (though I haven't gone beyond the lead yet, so I could be making assumptions). The content seems good at first glance. I'll try to go through the page in the near future, but I can't make any promises, so you might want to enlist another editor in the meantime. Shouldn't be too hard to get this in shape. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Pavel Nedvěd[edit]

Nominator(s): C679 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Pavel Nedvěd, a Czech footballer who won the coveted Ballon d'Or in 2003. The article has gone through a good article review, two peer reviews and a copy edit from WP:GOCE. C679 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I should also declare my participation in the WikiCup. C679 12:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Aria1561 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the sixth studio album by electronic musician Richard D. James under his Aphex Twin pseudonym. I am nominating this featured article for review because it is a well-written article that I feel is worthy of becoming a featured article. I believe that it fits all of the FA criteria. The article was recently promoted to good article status on February 27, as well. Aria1561 (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. It is a good start, but the article falls short in a few fundamental areas:

  • 1a: It is not well-written at this time. Random examples:
  • Basic grammar: "He noted that by rearranging equipment—and often keeping the same setup for around just five minutes—it allowed him to explore more writing possibilities"
  • Lack of clarity and detail: "Describing the overall process as 'brutal', James referred to the in-studio technical issues as the catalyst for writing new music that would be featured on Syro." This makes no sense as stated. Why would technical issues cause someone to write new music?
  • Clunky, non-parallel sentences: "Syro (pronounced /saɪroʊ/) is a neologism that was coined by one of James' children and a shortened version of 'Syrobonkus', a 'nonsense word one of his sons blurted out while listening to [the album].'"
  • General overuse of quotations. Quotations should be used only when something is important to state precisely as written in the source, or when paraphrasing is impossible. You have used quotations throughout the article where paraphrasing would produce a much better result. Example: "then [the engineer] realized [sic] he was doing it all wrong and had to start again". There's nothing profound here that shouldn't just be paraphrased.
  • The Reception section in general is overstocked with quotations, most of which say nothing that can't be paraphrased. This is a growing practice in album articles, and not a positive one.
  • 1b: After reviewing some of the sources on this album, I feel that you have left out information about the musical themes on the album, and writing about EDM as a genre.
  • At least 3 sources describe EDM aspects of the album, yet you don't mention it. On the other hand, you provide a list of subgenres sourced to the Staples review—he really only mentions them in passing and not as major themes of the album.
  • On a similar note, I think it's a bit of a stretch to list "glitch" as a subgenre based on Staples writing "his utilization of familiar glitch-hop melodies".
  • 1c: A brief library search revealed 2-3 prominent articles about the album that you didn't use, and that could be used to expand the coverage of themes. For example, the Gary Suarez Billboard review, and the Simon Vozick-Levinson Rolling Stone review (on 9/25, later than the one you have here).
  • 2a: The lead doesn't reflect the key points of the article very well. It should be expanded to put due weight on the major ideas and less weight on minor ones. For example, you have a phrase dedicated describing the subgenres, an idea which is discussed in only one sentence in the article. It would be better to devote 1-2 full sentences in the lead describing the primary genre.

These are representative issues—the whole article should be examined for similar. --Laser brain (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 404[edit]

Nominator(s): Floydian τ ¢ 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the northern extension of the Don Valley Parkway, an existing Featured Article, above Highway 401, a second FA. After an extended break by myself, this article was just promoted to A-class by WP:HWY. I feel it is worthy of the star and figured you might agree! Floydian τ ¢ 21:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. I reviewed this article at the ACR and believe it meets the criteria. I also did a source review at ACR (spotchecks not done). - Evad37 [talk] 23:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I also reviewed this article at the ACR and feel it meets the FA criteria. I also conducted an image review at the ACR. Dough4872 13:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


  • "mostly of the Parclo A4 configuration"
Jargon is bad, especially jargon that requires one to click through to understand the meaning. There's no reason not to call this "partial cloverleaf" or, most accurately and easiest to understand in this example, "half cloverleaf".
  • "Exit numbers on the freeway " ... "there are no exit numbers posted on the parkway"
This needs fixing.
  • "form a separate carriageway with no access to Sheppard"
Worth mentioning that this is done with k-rails and the roadway is not separated.
  • "To the west and north of Sheppard Avenue is Fairview Mall, which has its own connection with the southbound lanes"
No, the entrance is part of the southbound Sheppard cloverleaf.
  • "The freeway passes west of Buttonville Airport and encounters an interchange with 16th Avenue"
Encounters? Perhaps just "and then..."?
  • "The third contract called for a four lane extension from Davis Drive to Green Lane and the reconstruction of Green Lane into a four-laned arterial road between Leslie Street and Woodbine Avenue"
OK, here's my real problem. This section basically fails to relate the long history that the arrival of the 404 at Davis had on the area. Davis became completely snarled with traffic, as did Leslie. Green Lane became a major route in spite of it being one lane (and initially gravel!) and ending at the "infinite light". The elimination of the Bogartown Curve didn't help matters. As someone that had to drive this every day for about a year, the disaster that was eastern Newmarket traffic from 1989 to 2002 simply not being mentioned seems like a serious oversight. Instead, the article implies the opposite...
"This was completed on October 24, 1989. Since then, the route has been expanded in width and extended"
Which to me implies this was a continuous process.
And then we come to the issue of the Bradford Bypass. Unlike the Davis snarl, the Bradford Bypass is new enough to trivially find many articles on, and the aftermath of its cancellation. The extensions of Green to the west are also not mentioned. All of this is to get the traffic out of the Newmarket area.
I'm sorry, but I can't consider this to be FA quality with these issues of major import missing from the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that I've tried to contact the nominator since I suspect they may not have seen the objections above. --Rschen7754 04:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

61 Cygni[edit]

Nominator(s): -The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. The last nomination failed die to lack of any attention from commentators and this try should make it go. Thanks..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This one is right up my alley, so here goes...

  • all the images check out.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • there are a number of duplicate links that should be unlnked. There's a great tool for finding these, here.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • the lead has lots of cites. Generally I would suggest moving these out of the lead where possible, and placing them on the first mention in the body. I find that makes the lead easier to read and less distracting.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the correctness of the statement, but "till date" made my head swim. Is this a wrong-side-of-the-pond issue?
Rewrote..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Thus it not only has no proper name, it has no Greek letter name either." This statement is doubly confusing. The first part of the statement suggests that it has no proper name because it has a flamsreed designation, which I don't think is correct? Moreover, the lead suggests it does have a proper name (assuming "proper" means what I think it does in this context). The second part definitely needs some explanation, as I don't think most readers will be familiar with the constellation naming conventions. And if the names in the lead are common, it would seem they should be discussed here - how did it get these names, and why aren't they proper?
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Observation history" starts in 1804, which seems unlikely as it is naked eye visible. Is there really no record of it on any charts or maps prior to this time?
None could be found..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "313.6 mas" is not converted.
Converted to light years..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • " Groombridge 1830" this whole section is oddly worded, IMHO, perhaps "Only a few years after Bessel's measurement, Groombridge 1830 was discovered to have a larger proper motion and became the second highest known. It was later moved further down the list by Kapteyn's Star and Barnard's Star. 61 Cygni currently has the seventh highest proper motion of all stellar systems listed in the modern Hipparcos Catalogue, but retains the title of highest proper motion among visible stars."
Rewrote..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest "By 1911, further observations had improved on Bessel's parallax measurement of 313.6 mas to 310.0 mas. This corresponds to a motion transverse to our line of sight of 79 km/s. Observations at Yerkes Observatory measured its radial velocity as 62 km/s[29]. Using the two measurements together yielded a space velocity of about 100 km/s, moving towards a point about 12 degrees west of Orion's belt."
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "member of a comoving group of stars" what is the difference between "comoving group of stars" and a binary? Is this referring to a much larger group of stars with 26 members, or 26 other examples of the same type of group? In their case it would seem that some explanation here would be helpful.
Piped..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "An observer using"... shouldn't this be in the next section where it talks about "although it appears to be a single star"?
Properties exclusively deal with the physical properties and IMO, have nothing to do with a guideline for an observer. Please correct me of I am wrong...-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Cygni A has served as a stable K5 V "anchor point" of the MK classification system" I think this needs some expansion. There's a lot of unexplained jargon there - what is MK, and why is 61 the anchor? And what does "stable" mean in the context of it being a variable?
Its linked to their own respective articles and a further explanation will do no good (IMO)..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Component A has about 11% more mass than component B" If we're talking about 61 Cygni A and B, why the sudden change to use the term "Component"? It seems some of this para should be part of the previous and vice versa?
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "that a third body must"... definitely mention that this first estimate was 16 jupiter masses. That explains the next statement, which is...
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Reports of this third body served as inspiration for Hal Clement's 1953 science fiction novel Mission of Gravity." On of sci fi's great novels, but I think we need a cite on that.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • suggest a para break at "in 1977" or alternately "in 1978"
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Should the mention of the habitable zone be here, or in the Properties?
Properties throw a light on that but this section can better explain it...-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Measurements of this system"... this comes immediately after talking about the SIM, but appears to be unrelated? If so, a para break would be useful.
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Not to be confused with 16 Cygni" - really don't need this. if anyone is confused about transposing digits, this note isn't going to help them!
Done..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've made some additional minor GR edits and one re-arrangement. But as I somewhat suspected, it was not difficult to find documentation on earlier observational history. I'm back to Bradly in 1753 so far, which suggests that they were aware it was a binary and had high proper motion well into the 16th century. Given the use of Flamsteed, I suspect that the history doesn't go back more than another 40 years, but it's a start. Here is a good article with some of the history. I'm willing to take a stab at this myself if you'd like, but I leave it to your decision. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please....-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 11:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have made some pretty significant edits to the article. I have attempted to address the issue of the naming, but it remains unclear because I cannot find a suitable online reference, only the mention of a mention. I would also like to clarify exactly what von Struve was saying, because it is clear other observers knew it was a binary decades earlier and the various references stating he was the first to suggest it are obviously wrong. Others phrase it to be that he was the first to strongly argue for it, but laking any original sources I can't really say what it's about. I think both of these issues deserve more work before continuing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

When its almost improbable that you will get a source, can you suggest some way to get it out..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 17:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The only thing I'm really uncomfortable with is the von Struve issue about the binary. I suspect this is simply a confusion of words - it appears he was making the argument that it really was a gravitational binary, as opposed to an optical one, but no one really says that. Removing that would have no effect on quality, IMHO, while removing the mention of Flamsteed's naming would. So let me work on Flamsteed for a day or two? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Please, if you could..-The Heraldthe joy of the LORDmy strength 13:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Master of Puppets[edit]

Nominator(s): Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Metallica's third studio album, often cited as their musical peak. I think it is well researched and hope it satisfies the FA criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Media check - all OK
  • Additionally, this song sample has a second problem with "minimal usage", as the song is already extensively covered in a second article. Multiple usages for the same purpose in separate articles are generally discouraged (WP:NFC). Suggestion: could you use a different song as sample of the album's style to avoid this issue?
I removed it from the song article, and added a more specific rationale for its use.
OK thanks. Not really a big fan of this strict rule myself (for all cases), but it's the current handling within WP:NFC. GJ
  • File:Metallica_(1986)_Welcome_Home_(Sanitarium)_sample.ogg - length OK, needs a more specific "purpose of use", see point 2.
  • File:Kirk Hammett playing.jpg - I suggest to replace this one with a different image: 1) the original Flickr link is no longer available 2) the original uploader, while uploading in good faith, had several of their uploads removed for copyright reasons. Considering the image looks somewhat professional and has Photoshop changes in its EXIF, it would be better to use a different image. It's not an outright copyvio, but the image's history is unclear.
I could not find other images showing the band performing something from this album, so if it's not a flagrant copyright violation, I'd prefer to keep it.
After reasonable research, let's keep the image then (I couldn't find a similar version as well, thanks for double-checking). GJ
  • Bonus question: probably obvious and just my lack of knowledge, but how do you know that Hammett is performing "Master of Puppets" (and not a different song) here, as stated in the caption?
I've seen this show on YouTube, and this is an angle from "Master of Puppets".
I knew it was something obvious :) - have updated the description to include that detail. GJ

(ec) Some clarification and cleanup needed, but nothing unsolvable. GermanJoe (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Update (some points struck) Could you expand/specify the "purpose of use" for the second sample as well please? Aside from that minor point all media should be gtg. GermanJoe (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Done, added a more specific explanation for the use of the "Welcome Home (Sanitarium)" sample.--Retrohead (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, have updated the header status (all OK). GermanJoe (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Tomica
  • The pictures have alt, good
Ok, noted.
  • There are no redirects
Noted, tnx.
Yes, this was a case at the GA review. You need to be a user on Classic Rock in order to enter their website.
  • Okay, the lead it's kinda confusing. Although it's grammatically totally fine, usually we follow the format; general info, composition, critical reception, commercial performance, singles, tour... Do you think you can re-arrange it?
Now it is background–composition–critical reception–commercial performance–touring
  • Metallica embarked on a five-month tour of the US in support of Ozzy Osbourne. → This got me confused... do you mean with a support from Ozzy Ozbourne? And does the tour have a name?
They were supporting Ozzy. The tour was called Damage, Inc. Tour, mentioned in the 'Touring' section.
  • Background and recording:
    • already entitled Master of Puppets ---> already is redundant
The word "already" implies to the reader that the album title was given before the songs were completed.
  • after the end of each quote sentence u need to provide a reference — Tom(T2ME) 19:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, you've thought of Hammett's statement. Done.--Retrohead (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments from  — ₳aron
  • You could use a flat list for the producers in the Info box so that they are bulleted.
Flat list added.
  • album released on a major label. → album to be released on a major label.
I used only released because it is finished action. To be released would indicate that the album is about to be released.
  • Master of Puppets is the band's → Master of Puppets was the band's
I think it's safe to assume that an album would chart on an album chart.
  • and became → and it became
It is dropped in the second clause because it is part of a sentence that refers to the album.
It is dropped in the second clause because it is part of a sentence that refers to the album.
  • and is one of the most influential heavy metal albums → and is has become one of the most influential heavy metal albums.
the meaning of both alternatives is the same, the second one is just a bit wordier.
  • The cover was designed → The album's artwork was designed
Artwork and cover art are synonyms. I opted to use a more diverse vocabulary, although both term are used throughout the article.
  • What was Ozzy Osbourne doing? Solo tour, group tour? If so, what tour?
Ozzy was touring with a band of his own (not with Black Sabbath). The sources I looked in doesn't mention the name of his tour, just the name of Metallica's— Damage, Inc. Tour.
  • Metallica honored the album's twentieth anniversary in 2006 by playing it in its entirety. → Where?
The tour is explained in detail in the 'Live performances'. I don't think listing various countries in the lead would make it read as a summary of the entire article.
Saying in a world tour or something similar won't hurt. It's not a complete sentence.  — ₳aron 23:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

These are just things I picked up on from the Lead alone. Also, neither the Commercial performance section nor the Chart table mention of or includes it's peaked of number 19 on the Billboard Hard Rock album chart. There's a lot of white space once you get to the Personnel, Charts and Certifications. I'd make Personnel two columns, and move the Certifications table up into the Charts section, re-naming it Charts and certifications, with both as sub-sections. 09:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

These suggestions are a mere case of editorial preference. Another editor might suggest bringing the sections back to the older state based on WP:MOS-ALBUM. I appreciate your overall input and time, but the points above were addressed by a two copyeditors and reverting the prose back to its "verbose" character might hurt the nomination.--Retrohead (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Just because two copyeditors did it one way, doesn't mean it's the "right" way. As such, I believe how it is right now is hurting it. It's not about personal editorial style, it's about the management of content and structure, and it's nothing that hasn't been suggested to me before.  — ₳aron 23:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Avianca Flight 52[edit]

Nominator(s): Veggies (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a Boeing 707 flight between Colombia and New York City that crashed on January 25, 1990 due to fuel starvation. Veggies (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of this accident, which is odd considering the date. This is superb article and totally fascinating.

  • I found the intro statement somewhat difficult to read. The information is all good, but it's sort of randomly placed and repetitive. There's also some examples of connecting statements being used to connect things that aren't really related (talking to traffic control did not cause the aircraft to run out of fuel) How about something to the effect of...
Avianca Flight 52, a Boeing 707, ran out of fuel and crashed while on approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport on January 25, 1990. Eight of the nine crew members and 65 of the 149 passengers on board were killed. Hundreds of emergency personnel responded to the crash site and helped save victims. Many of those who survived were severely injured and required months or years to physically recover.
Flight 52 was a regularly scheduled flight from Bogotá to New York, via Medellín. The flight left Medellín with more than enough fuel for the journey and progressed toward JFK normally. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns while approaching New York and became critically low on fuel. The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, [really?] forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt. The airplane crashed approximately 20 miles (32 km) from JFK, striking a hillside in the small village of Cove Neck, New York, on the north shore of Long Island.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the crash resulted from the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, resulting in air traffic control underestimating the seriousness of the situation. Weather, air traffic controller performance, and FAA traffic management were also cited as contributing to the events that led to the accident. This conclusion was controversial, with disagreement between investigators, passengers, and Avianca as to who was ultimately responsible. Eventually, the US Federal Government joined with Avianca to settle damages due to the victims. The crash was also portrayed in a variety of media.
I'm not perfectly happy with this either, but I think its somewhat better?
  • link to hush kit, remove quotes around second instance.
  • B-707, or simply 707? I've always seen the later.
  • "At least six bodies were found outside the fuselage" This statement seems out of place, should it not be in the previous section? Or is there some detail I'm missing here? And does this total include the deck crew, or is this passengers only?
  • "evacuated to hospitals" suggest para break here, but I'll leave this one to you.
  • "At least one emergency responder" I think this should be the first statement, priests after.
  • "At least one flight crew member was airlifted" Cockpit crew or flight crew? If the later, this should be moved down.
  • "Two surviving male passengers " definitely should be a separate para.
  • "The investigation of Flight 52 began immediately after the crash" I'm not sure this requires mentioning, it always does.
  • "FDR foil was found to have been taped down at some point" What does "taped down" mean?
  • "they were being treated routinely and not given any emergency priority" I'd like to see an explanation as to why this is.
  • "The report cited recurring maintenance problems with the airplane's autopilot" this is not mentioned in the section on the aircraft, and it seems it should be.
  • "The same summer" suggest making this its own para.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest increasing size of both map and diagram to improve readability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

God of War: Ascension[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 15:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2013 PlayStation 3 video game, God of War: Ascension. I've tried to edit and model this off of the somewhat recently promoted FA, God of War III, though of course there are differences. JDC808 15:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fremantle Prison[edit]

Nominator(s): Evad37 [talk] 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the World Heritage listed former Australian prison – built by convicts, for convicts, between 1851 and 1859, and used as a prison until 1991. Unlike my other FA, GA, and A-class articles, the challenge was generally not in finding in finding reliably sourced information, but in distilling a vast quantity into an encyclopaedic article (and various sub-articles). This article has improved considerably since the 2006 nomination (old revision), and I believe it now meets the criteria. I look forward to your comments, and hope to eventually bring the whole set of articles to good or featured topic status. - Evad37 [talk] 06:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:DoNoMurder_2005_SeanMcClean.jpg: I think this is a photo of a 2D work? If so, the photographer does not hold copyright, the original is likely simple enough to be public domain
  • File:FremantlePrisonMainCellBlockMap.jpg: what is the source of the information presented in this map? What do the different colours/lines represent?
  • File:EdmundHenderson.jpg: any more details about this image...first publication, author, date?
  • File:Fremantle_Prison_inmates_and_main_front_Iwel.tif: what is the difference between the two pages?
  • File:Fenians_escape_Fremantle.jpg: the Sketcher is the publisher not the author - any idea who the original author was?
  • File:FremantlePrisonWalsh1.JPG: again, representation of 2D work - license tags should reflect status of original image, not reproduction. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • DoNoMurder_2005_SeanMcClean.jpg – adjusted to {{PD-text}}
  • EdmundHenderson.jpg – details added
  • Fremantle_Prison_inmates_and_main_front_Iwel.tif – have requested removal of duplicate page at c:Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#tif_file_with_a_duplicate_page
  • Fenians_escape_Fremantle.jpg – source page doesn't indicate an author, so I have changed it to Unknown author
  • FremantlePrisonWalsh1.JPG – adjusted to use {{PD-art}}
  • I'll have to look into FremantlePrisonMainCellBlockMap.jpg – the author is inactive and hasn't contributed to wikipedia or commons for ages, so we're not likely to find out the original source used (though they were a tour guide at the prison, according to the wikipedia user page). I'll have to look through the sources I used in the article to see if I can find one to verify that layout. - Evad37 [talk] 04:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Bollyjeff (talk), User:Dr. Blofeld (talk)

This article is about a man who is arguably the biggest film star in the world. During its first FAC, some reviewers cited excessive length. We have now moved non-essential elements into sub-articles, making it very manageable. I believe it is FA quality. Khan is turning fifty this year, and I would like to see this have a shot at TFA. Thank you, BollyJeff | talk 18:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

Support — I supported in the previous FAC. With a lot of copyediting and a second PR done, the article looks even better. Just a couple of comments though

  • A line or two on Paheli can be included as it was well received by critics. Just a suggestion though. Your call, Bollyjeff.
  • Personally, I wouldn't want to see any possible deadlinks in this article. Archiving of all the references (excluding those from books) would be great.

Comments from Kailash[edit]

Though I supported this during the previous FAC, the article has undergone substantial changes since, and some points I'd like to list:

  • "villainous roles" - I don't know how much of a POV statement it can sound like, but "negative roles" may do if needed.
I like it this way for the majority of English-language readers. I have already changed it from "negative" to "dark" to "villainous" based on other reviewers comments. BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • DDLJ, DTPH, KKHH and K3G are all romantic films with varying subgenres. So I think they can simply referred to as romantic films. And fix the link to K3G.
  • "reportedly one of the richest actors in the world in 2014" - Sounds vague. According to who?
Acting career
  • "made-for-television English-language film" - I'd prefer "English-language television film", wikilink included.
  • "changed his mind" - I earlier said to change this to the more formal "changed his decision". Why is it back again?
  • Please update info on DDLJ's run; I guess it was never removed, only they announced that they would close it, though they did not.
  • Fix the link to Asoka.
  • "penned" is jargon. Say "written".
  • Veer Zara can simply be described as a romantic film, as "saga" usually means something longer, like a series.
  • Don can be simply described as an action film, because that it is what is, not entirely a thriller.
  • "portraying a 1970s junior artiste who is reborn in the 2000s as a superstar" - the reincarnation (Om Kapoor) was not born in the 2000s. he was born just after Om Prakash died in the 1970s.
  • "turning down" - refusing?
  • "11 September attacks" - must match the article name (September 11 attacks).
That would violate the date style, no? BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "a sequel to Don of 2006" - a sequel to Don (2006). I also think it is SRK's first sequel in his career.
In the media
  • "ad" - You mean advertisement.
Do you mean in "television ads, print ads"? It wont sound right using that big word twice in a row. I believe it is as shown in the source. BollyJeff | talk 22:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We already know who Anupama Chopra is, so need to define her by occupation.
  • The quote box seems misplaced.
  • Single digit numbers must not be represented through numerals, but through letters... unless required.
  • "Chopra's book gives the date as 19 September 1980, making Khan 14 years old" - mention the book name, and I think you mean that SRK was 14 years old at that time.
Additionally, it would be great if all the links were archived, as once there were "I-don't-remember-how-many" dead links, possibly over 100. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
@Kailash29792: Is that a support now then or not?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Support – Other reviewers plainly know much more about the subject than I do, but from the layman's point of view I find the article comprehensive and evidently well balanced, the prose is easy to read, and the word-count has wisely been brought down to about three-quarters of the previous length. It is not obvious to me how any reader wanting information about this performer could be disappointed by this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 08:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Support; nicely put together and appears well-balanced. - SchroCat (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Tim riley and SchroCat for taking the time to read and review this. Glad Tim that your earlier concerns with it have now been met.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

Early life and family
  • "...served as chief engineer of the port in the 1960s." -- Looking at the date in the opening of the first section, I assume we will be completing the article in BrEng? If so, the definate article is much more preferable.
  • "As of 2010, Khan's paternal family was still living in Shah..."were" living?
  • "According to Khan, while he strongly believes in Islam, he also values his wife's religion" -- Which is?
  • "At home, his children follow both religions" -- So when not at home do they follow others? "At home" is a little redundent I fear.
Acting career
  • "Two weeks after his mother's death in April 1991, Khan changed his decision regarding acting in films,[41] citing it as a way to escape the pain of losing her." -- This sounds a little repetetive seeing as we only mentioned her death in the previous section. Might I suggest instead: "Khan changed his decision to act in films in 1991, citing it as a way to escape the grief of his mother's death." This will also get rid of the WP:EUPHEMISM with the"losing her" term.
  • "...and by June 1991" -- No need for the year again.
  • "... he had started his first shooting" -- " he had started his first shoot"?
  • "Another of his early signings, Deewana, was released in June 1992, becoming his film debut." -- Why not cut straight to it and say "His film debut was in Deewana..."?
  • "with actress Juhi Chawla." -- Def article?
  • "Darr marked the first of Khan's many collaborations with filmmaker Yash Chopra and his company Yash Raj Films. His stammering..." Khan or Chopra?
  • " of the year in India. His most significant release that year was Aditya Chopra's directorial debut" -- year/year in close proximity.
  • "The performance itself is, like the best in the business, played well enough to come across as effortless, as non-acting." -- Odd comma use. "The performance itself is like the best in the business, played well enough to come across as effortless, as non-acting." Check the sources to see if this correct.
  • "Later in 1997, he starred in Subhash Ghai's diasporic-themed social drama Pardes, where he portrayed Arjun" -- Laterin 1997, he starred in Subhash Ghai's diasporic-themed social drama Pardes, in which he portrayed Arjun..."?
  • "but India Today lauded Khan's energetic performance" -- They would've lauded Khan for his performance not his actual performance?
  • "Writer Anjana Motihar Chandra" -- Def article?
  • "He continued to have frequent associations with directors Yash Chopra, Aditya Chopra, and Karan Johar" -- We know they're directors so it sounds a little repetitive. Suggest: "He continued to have frequent professional associations with Yash Chopra, Aditya Chopra, and Karan Johar..."?
  • "Khan became a producer..." -- We can get away with a pronoun here.
  • "In 2002, Khan played..." -- For an article in BrEng such as this, I'm not sure of the American comma used in openers such as this. Having said that, consistency is present throughout regarding this and if others don't object then neither will I.
  • "Fuad Omar, author of Bollywood: An Insider's Guide..." -- Def article?
  • "WP:OVERLINK of New York City. I think we're safe in the expectation that most people would've heard of this.
  • "...with his wife Gauri serving as a producer." -- Copy edit "serving" out of this; it would work just as well without IMO.
  • Likewise with "new" immediately after it.
  • "...grossing film of 2004 in India, earning a worldwide gross..." -- grossing/gross
Other work
  • "...he and wife Gauri" -- Do we need a further introduction to Gaurj?
  • "He also sang in his own voice..." - Always much easier singing in your own voice rather than someone else's I suppose.
  • "I would link Manchester as there is no suggestion that we are in the U.K at this point. We mention the U.K with a load of other places and those not geographically minded my struggle to place it within the U.K in light of the other countries mentioned.

Support -- That's my lot, none of it essential of course so please adopt or disregard at your discretion. A much improved article on an important figure within the Bollywood industry. CassiantoTalk 04:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have adopted most of these. BollyJeff | talk 08:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Which ones did you skip? CassiantoTalk 16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
His wife's religion was already mentioned twice in the paragraph, so I did not add it a third time. The odd comma that you mentioned was indeed that way in the source. I left all of the "In YYYY," commas. That's it I think. BollyJeff | talk 00:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
No problem. CassiantoTalk 01:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Cheers Cass, some good points too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, although changes based on Cassianto's comments above (taken as a whole) would be an improvement over my work. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Dank.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Jarrow March[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing revolutionary about the 1936 Jarrow march; it was the polite, constitutional action of a town brought to destitution by 1930s economic policies. They came to London, presented their case, were fobbed off with tea and sympathy, and quietly went home. Yet the march became one of the defining images of the decade, and greatly influenced post-war policies towards full employment – at least until the 1980s. But that's another tale. My thanks to some careful peer reviewers who have watched over the article's preparation and made numerous helpful suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I was one of the peer reviewers and had my say there. It is an excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Wehwalt. Also had my say at the peer review. —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks to both of you. I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment.
  • Alt text. None of the photographs have alt text.
  • Alt text isn't a FAC requirement. Opinions differ as to its usefulness; I am a sceptic and no longer include it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree on the usefulness, but I've struck my comment. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll follow up with a more thorough review. GregJackP Boomer! 23:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your interest in the article. Any further comments will be very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I haven't been able to make further comments, I think it is a very good article. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • You have the unitalicised "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography online edition", but the italicised "Who's Who online edition". I'd aim for consistency, unless you have a good reason to do something different for these two
  • Neither should be italicised, since in both cases the source is the website version, not the book. Fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN9: "et al": shouldn't you have this italicised?
  • My view is that this tag is used so often in English that, like for example "etc", it no longer needs italicising. If the Great Riley says otherwise I will defer to him. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN18: Comma after author
  • FN21: I have a feeling there should be some italicisation around at least some part of "The Guardian Housing Network"
  • Slightly tricky one, this, as the source is not the newspaper but a site run by the newspaper. I have compromised by putting the paper's title in italics. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN22: I think you mean 5 November 1932
  • FN29, 42 & 89: Should be comma after author, not full stop
  • FN75: is there a reason you have a book here, rather than in the Sources section?
  • Well. it's an unpaginated ebook, so the normal short citation "Parker, p. ???" doesn't work. I though the direct link to the page would be the most helpful way of dealing with this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • FN111: Are you sure you retrieved it in 1936?
  • Yes, my private timelord arranged this on my behalf. But someone else has "corrected" it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Skidelsky: for consistency you should add UK to Harmondsworth, as you have done for the other two Penguin books

That's it for the moment, but I'll go over it again later to make sure I've not missed anything. – SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for picking these things up. All sorted now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – Another peer-reviewer: happy then and happy now. The prose is compellingly readable, the illustrations are admirable, the text is balanced and thoroughly sourced and cited. Plainly of FA quality – as well as thought-provoking, and touching. Happy to support, on St George's Day, an article that does justice to the Englishmen and Englishwomen concerned. – Tim riley talk 10:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Tim, your kind words and encouragement are most valuable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Sculpture name should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Support from SchroCat. I made some minor tweaks four or five days ago (see here) prior to the source review I gave. I have only one comment: in the UK unemployment section, is it worth a link to gold standard? Oh, and one further thought: T. Vosper Salt? Was Blandings Castle nearby?SchroCat (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I have added the link. I'm afraid I can't do anything about Mr Salt. If you can find a way of working him into the Wodehouse article, that will be worth an extra-large barnstar. Thanks for your tweaks and comments here, and of course for your welcome support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

  • When the feasibility report was received by the BISF in March 1935, the Federation's chairman, Sir Andrew Duncan, at first reacted positively, his members from the north-east rather less so. - strikes me as a run-on sentence.
  • I think the readability problem perhaps arises from too many commas. As a sentence it is perfectly grammatical but I agree it reads awkwardly, and have rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Special Branch - link?
  • That table with the route is really small. Could it be a bit bigger? 80% or 90%?
  • I've increased the font on both the in-text tables to 80%. Anything larger, I think, is uncomfortable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Minor nitpicks only. I feel comfortable supporting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your interest and support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Blofeld comments Been rather busy today, I'll be better off giving this a full read tomorrow after a good night's sleep.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Is there an article on something like "social reform after the Second World War"? It might be useful to have a link to more background info on that.
  • Well, there's Postwar Britain, which rather skates over the immediate post-war years, or Attlee ministry, perhaps. Neither is particularly strong on social change, and neither is very well written. Not sure how useful a link to either would really be, but I'll give it further consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Amazing isn't it that we don't seem to have any solid articles on these very important topics! Can you think of anybody who would be ideal to create a decent article on Social reform in Postwar Britain?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
National background
  • "Unemployment was particularly heavy in Britain's traditional staple export industries—coal mining, shipbuilding, iron and steel and textiles" -is there anything worth linking here too? I'm not sure we have specific articles on industries in the UK, we should have. Textile industry in the United Kingdom etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, I'll look to see what if anything can be usefully linked here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Labour Party linked but not Conservative?
Local background
  • Perhaps "The town's years as a coalfield were unhappy" should be tweaked to The town's years as a coalfield were generally unhappy as it's quite a generalised statement to make, different people might have had happier years than others! I suppose if you're referring to the town in general then it's OK as it is though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the word is general enough as it stands. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the 1931 general election" and "general election of November 1935", -links? -you linked the 1935 one further down but not in first instance.
  • Both theses now linked at first instance
  • " was given by James Gordon, the Bishop of Jarrow ." -close gap before punctuation.
  • "that drew the ire of one Conservative MP" -who? Why not just give the name?
  • I thought I'd save the bloke embarrassment by not revealing him as responsible for such cheap hypocricy, but it's in the source, so I've outed him. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The only other thing I can think of is perhaps asking at the graphic lab for somebody to make you a map of the route of the march or something like that with the towns illustrated and the dates. That might be useful to the reader. Aymatth2 is often good with that sort of thing, but I believe is still on holiday.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • A map would look prettier, but would it be able to hold all the information that's in the table (all the stopping places, the distances between them, the dates of the stops, the dates of the rest days)? If it did it would, I think, be either too large for the article, or the detail would be too small to be useful. Your friend is welcome to give it a go, though. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support This is really an impeccable piece of work, found it very difficult to see anything to complain about at all. Easily meets FA criteria, excellent.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • That's a very generous summary.Thank you for your observations which I've either attended to or commented on. And thank you for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I read through this a few days ago as the subject interests me; I fixed the DABS referred to above automatically without realising they had been flagged by another reviewer, sorry. I've watched the other tweaks made since then and I'm happy to support this interesting, well written nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Milan – San Remo[edit]

Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the 2015 Milan - San Remo cycling race, one of the most important one-day races in the cycling calendar. The race has had a controversial few years with several changes to the classic route, but this year's race was successful enough that future events will use the route again. I successfully took it to Good Article status a couple of weeks ago. This is my first attempt at nominating an article for Featured Article status and I'm doing so with some nervousness: I hope I've got the process right! Relentlessly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. This is the best and most complete cycling article I've read about a race. The references are varied and pertinent. The prose is top-notch. The race is notable too: it is one of the five Cycling Monuments, the most important races on the calendar besides the Grand Tours. It deserves to be on the front page. Mattsnow81 (Talk) 16:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not asking you to add "race" to the page title ... I consider WP:TITLE and WP:RM to be above my paygrade ... but I'm uncomfortable enough with the page title that it stopped me from copyediting and supporting on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Dank, thanks for your comment. Could you clarify your concern? The race is universally known as Milan – San Remo (or Milano–Sanremo), by the race organisers, by the cycling media, by cycling fans. It is never referred to as "Milan – San Remo race". The current title (a) matches every single cycling race article and (b) complies with WP:COMMONNAME. Relentlessly (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually you're right. My problem isn't with the page title, it's with the first sentence. Here are the first 3 "Milan – San Remo" ghits to websites not dedicated to cycling:
  • Each of these treats "Milan – San Remo" as the proper noun, so they all support the current page title, but an adjective rather than a noun, except in headlines, which aren't expected to be grammatical. I'd like to see more research on this, but if a wide variety of sources use "Milan – San Remo" as an adjective, then it probably shouldn't be a page title, since page titles are nouns or noun phrases. [added 14:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)]
  • Also, none of them starts off "The 2015 Milan – San Remo was the 106th edition of the Milan – San Remo one-day cycling classic", which is redundant. (I don't personally care whose rules we follow, but "avoid redundancy" is one of the rules FAC reviewers tend to follow.) Instead, one says "Milan-San Remo one-day race", and the other two say "the Milan-San Remo one-day race, the first of the season’s five 'Monument' classics". Also see WP:REDUNDANCY, which redirects to LEAD. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying. I've modified the lead to "The 2015 Milan – San Remo was a one-day cycling classic that took place in Italy on 22 March." It could be modified further to "The 2015 Milan – San Remo one-day cycling classic took place in Italy on 22 March." This seems less good to me, though I will happily concede expertise to you! Hopefully what I've done has improved it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Dank, just wondering if you might be able to take another look? I'm really keen to get your comments on prose. Many thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Continuing soon. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm in caffeine withdrawal, so I'm going to hand a few problems off to other reviewers. It would be a good idea to reduce or eliminate the use of "Milan – San Remo" as a noun, per the links I gave above.
  • "(150.2 mi))": Avoid )) per MOS.
  • " was extremely technical"?
  • "9 kilometres (5.6 mi) section": needs a fix, but VisualEditor isn't cooperating
  • " With Cavendish not in perfect form, his Etixx-Quick Step also had Zdeněk Štybar and 2014 world champion Michał Kwiatkowski able to attempt an attack in the final part of the race.": ?
  • " A group therefore came together into the finishing straight.": I don't get "therefore" here. In general, try to avoid cause-and-effect words if they're not necessary.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Many thanks for you review, Dank; I'm grateful for your comments and your copyedits. I've fixed all the specific points you raise and I'll have a look through to clean up the others, the therefores and the meants, etc. I'm still not convinced about a problem with "Milan – San Remo" being used as a noun: it is universal in the specialist media and not unknown in general media (e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5]). I'm reluctant to change this one, though I won't go to the wall over it. Relentlessly (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
      • The larger issue of what might be called jargon is probably the copyediting issue that causes me the most trouble, because of how Wikipedia works and because of the expectations that go with my wiki-jobs. I can't be considered neutral. Also, page titles are a whole thing unto themselves, and I haven't invested the time to learn them well. I'm willing to leave it alone for now, while noting that none of the links that either of us have given use "Milan – San Remo" in the text (headlines don't count) without first using something else as the implied noun ... race, classic, whatever. Another example: "400-meter" is used as an adjective, not a noun, in copyedited text ... you can tell from the hyphen and lack of an "s" ... but that doesn't mean that journalists don't write about the "400-meter" (as well as the "400 meters"), they do ... after they've mentioned a suitable noun phrase somewhere, so that you know what "400-meter" is supposed to modify. Standing alone doesn't stop a phrase from being adjectival. Lots of adjectives don't sit in front of the noun they modify. - Dank (push to talk) 16:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
      • To clarify: I'm not asking you to change the page title, because there's a lot more to page titles than just good copyediting principles, but I'm hoping that you (or someone) will go through the text making sure that "race" or "classic" or something occurs either before (and nearby) or immediately after every occurrence of "Milan – San Remo" (similarly to the way this is handled in all the links you and I have cited). - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Jacobus Anthonie Meessen[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about something different for me. Instead of being about the cinema of the Indies, it's about a little known photographer from the 19th century Dutch East Indies, active in both Padang and Batavia. I think you will find it an interesting read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • At the FAC level, {{ill}} templates should be replaced by a link to a stub.
    • That wasn't an issue with Departures nor many of Curly Turkey's articles, nor have I ever read a policy/MOS page regarding that. That being said, there's only one, and it's an inhabited place, so a stub is on its way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hm, I'm disappointed I didn't catch it in Departures when I reviewed it. I'll go talk with Curly, if he's using it ... I've rarely seen it at FAC. The two issues are Humpty-Dumptyism (no one uses (nl) to mean "you'll find a Dutch version of this article over here" in print, that I'm aware), and the general idea at FAC that articles should be approaching their finished state ... that is, if we've got something in article space intended to serve as a red flag that there's work to be done, then the work should be done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Moot in this case, as we now have a stub. I must say though that I disagree with the statement "if we've got something in article space intended to serve as a red flag that there's work to be done, then the work should be done"; the same could be said of red links, and a lack of red links is not a FA criteria on the English Wikipedia (now, the Indonesian Wikipedia...).  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I have no problem with a reasonable number of red links at FAC. The red flag (for me, because it sticks out like a sore thumb) is the (nl). - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
          • I have to disagree quite strongly. I've turned quite of few of those bracketed links into articles—I translated at least three that I saw at Charlie Hebdo shooting (Coco (cartoonist), Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011, and Mustapha Ourrad) that I wouldn't have even thought of writing if the interwiki link weren't there. Crisco work in this area probably outstrips mine severalfold. Wikipedia's a perpetual work-in-progress, and we should be encouraging people to get involved by providing plausible redlinks wherever we can. {{ill}}s are enriched redlinks in that they provide at least some info to people who can either read those other languages or make good use of Google Translate, and give editors something to work with that a plain redlink does not. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
            • All reasonable points. What about the two points I made? - Dank (push to talk) 23:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
              • The first point should be dealt with at the template talk page—I don't know what a better solution might be that doesn't overly clutter the page. The other has no bearing on an FAC: we don't evaluate an article on the quality of its sub- or linked articles, and removing a legitimate redlink doesn't improve the yet-uncreated article—it hides the "problem" rather than improving it, and discourages editors from creating it. Since ukiyo-e's promotion I've been going slowly through the redlinks and {{ill}}s. There are now only a handful left, and some (Kanae Yamamoto) have become quite substantial. Without that {{ill}} I likely wouldn't have created it at all. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
                  • And in Departures we ended up filling in five or six of the redlinks, with a little help from the Japanese articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
                    • Was it only five or six? It seemed like you spent about as much time squishing redlinks as writing the article! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "He worked mostly in the capital of Batavia (now Jakarta), Java, and Padang, Sumatra, with additional work in Bangka, Belitung, Borneo, and Nias.": I changed "lived" to "worked", on the theory that for the lead paragraph, readers will be more interested in where he made photographs than where he lived ... but if he didn't do photography in all these places, then this will be wrong. Also: pardon my ignorance, but I've never heard that Dutch East Indies was meant to include Sumutra ... was it? I'm confused why you say in the lead that all his images came from the Dutch East Indies, and then say later in the paragraph that one of the main places he lived was Sumatra.
    • The Indies included Sumatra, and (after Java) it was their main focus for development ... and Padang was a major culture and trade city. Dutch_East_Indies#Administrative_divisions has some administrative divisions (cited), and this map shows Sumatra as part of the Indies. Our own Milhist articles (I'm citing these as familiar territory) such as Battle of Palembang and Dutch East Indies campaign also show this. I suspect you're thinking of the returning Dutch government between 1945-1949, which was focused on Java and unable to reassert a meaningful presence in Sumatra. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Apologies. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a few edits that are in line with the meme of "classic style" ... there isn't a quick and simple description of that style or why anyone would prefer it, but I'll be happy to discuss if you like.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. FAC is quite fortunate to have your Indonesian articles; I wish we had more articles at FAC relevant to Asia and Africa. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Dank! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Changes look good, as long as we've got a stub. Always a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Well done. Just a few quibbles:
  • "Born to a carpenter in Utrecht, Meessen worked in that profession " Isn't it a trade more than a profession? Picky and classist, probably.
  • I was actually thinking that yesterday. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1858 he first went " Hermanus was the last male mentioned.
  • "the younger Meessen" now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "where he registered himself as a special inspector for water management" registered? Wasn't he employed? This sounds like a government sort of thing.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Just some haisplitting to grate on Crisco's nerves—feel free to disagree with anything:
  • IPA for the name might be nice
  • but also photographed Bangka, Belitung, Borneo, and Nias: I don't there's a contrast worthy of a "but" here.
  • published by De Bussy in 1875: Is "De Bussy" worth a redlink? If not, is it worth mentioning in the lead?
    • They lasted for at least 50 years, so probably worth one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • born in Utrecht, the Netherlands: Google tells me this phrasing is perfectly common, but I couldn't bring myself to say "Utrecht, the Netherlands" out loud the way I'd say "Deseronto, Ontario". I might phrase it "Utrecht in the Netherlands".
    • But then we'd be repeating "In". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I think it would still read more naturally, but it's up to you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • established his own photo studio: "his own" redundant—if he established it, then it was his own, nicht wahr?
  • and the commercial firm of Woodbury and Page (operated by Walter B. Woodbury and James Page): I assume they sold dirigibles?
  • (though it is not known what model(s) he used): might not this go better in an endnote?
    • Since we're talking about his equipment, I think it's worth having here, especially since it's a bit more immediately pertinent than (say) what the school he designed is being used as now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 1875 Exposition Géographique: worth a redlink?
  • Ultimately, however, he does not appear: I don't think the "Ultimately, however," adds anything important
    • Simply saying "he does not appear" strikes me as not connecting the two: his continued marketing and the lack of a return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this Hidde Petrus Nicolaas Halbertsma? Right period, but I can't place him around Gorredijk.: would it be worth asking at WikiProject Netherlands?
    • I think I asked someone before, but I'll check again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • None of this would have prevented me from giving the article my support, I just don't like to give it too easily. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wolbo[edit]

  • This is my first FAC review, sorry you had to be the victim.
  • Date of death: based on sources (see also Leeuwarder courant, 11–01–1886) should this not be 14 November 1885 instead of 14 October 1885?
    • You're right... fixed. (Thanks for the link to the mention of his death, too — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a particular reason for mentioning the province of Utrecht in the infobox instead of just the city?
    • I generally go City, Province, Country in my infoboxes (such as Sudirman). Maybe not 100% necessary for Utrecht, but better to be consistent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Your reply puzzles me. You mention that you generally go with City, Province, Country in infoboxes but the article you provide as an example, Sudirman (another excellent article!), shows City, Country (Poerbolinggo, Dutch East Indies) instead of City, Province, Country (Poerbolinggo, Central Java, Dutch East Indies). I don't know what the guidelines on this are, if any exist, but thought we generally go with the custom of the country, i.e. City, State, Country for the US. In the Netherlands it is not customary to include the province in a location (or address), see for instance Mark Rutte or Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands (also born in Utrecht).--Wolbo (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "On 11 December 1862 he wed Johanna Alida (Jansje) Steenbeek": is it worth mentioning that they married in Utrecht?
    • Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • FYI, an announcement of their wedding (1).--Wolbo (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "where he served as a special inspector for water management" As Wehwalt mentioned this is indeed 'a government sort of thing.' 'Waterstaat' is a government institution and the forerunner of the current Rijkswaterstaat. Adding this wikilink, either in the sentence or as a note, would be useful.
  • The couple had several children according to the Delpher newspaper archive (see e.g. 1 and 2). Should this be mentioned?
    • I'm impressed that you found that. My own searches through Delpher didn't show this. I'll take a look through the links. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Rather minimal, but definitely worth including. What do you think about "The couple had two daughters, born in 1865 and 1869". I'm hesitant to give the full dates of birth for them, but it's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Personally I think mentioning the year of birth is sufficient, I'll leave it up to you on how to phrase it. In addition to the daughters born in 1865 and 1869 they also had a daughter born in 1866 (1), and a stillborn daughter in 1863 (2). The daughter born in 1865 died in October that year (3).--Wolbo (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
          • K. I'm going through Delpher to see if we're missing any. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Couldn't find any further children. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In the article the term "Indies" is used frequently which confuses me. My understanding from reading the article is that Meessen lived in and traveled within the Dutch East Indies. To my mind "Indies" is a much broader area than the Dutch East Indies. The etymology section of the Dutch East Indies article mentions several English terms for this area (Indië, the Dutch East Indies, the Netherlands Indies, and colonial Indonesia) but "Indies" is not one of them.
  • " Minang Highlands": is this the same as Minangkabau Highlands?
  • "At 5 a.m. the following morning I awoke to find some 60 warriors waiting for me on the beach.": the original Dutch text makes no mention of any awakening. A better translation would be "At 5 a.m. sharp (or "At exactly 5 a.m.") the following morning I found some 60 warriors waiting for me on the beach.". Also note that "Upon arrival I took a few shots" refers to gunshots, not camera shots.
    • Yes, you're right. Both refined. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "At the 1875 Exposition Géographique in Paris, he exhibited 250 of his images – consisting of 175 landscapes and 75 portraits": would a citation of the exposition catalogue (see 1) be useful?
    • I'll take a look. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd seen this one previously, and decided against using it because the information was already cited in another source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note f ""Een noodzakelijk kwaad voor den militair, bewaren zij in en buiten de kaserne de beste tucht, terwijl op expeditiën of reizen over zee." is an incomplete sentence. It should be ""Een noodzakelijk kwaad voor den militair, bewaren zij in en buiten de kaserne de beste tucht, terwijl op expeditiën of reizen over zee deze vrouwen onschatbare diensten bewijzen.".
    • Added an ellipses, unless you think "these women provide invaluable services" (yes, "bewijzen" I know is closer to "prove", but "prove an invaluable service" doesn't strike me as idiomatic English when the subject is a person) is really needed given the context of the sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The English translation in itself is fine but the Dutch note is not complete. If you mention in the English translation the fragment "and prove invaluable" than the Dutch note should include the fragment "onschatbare diensten bewijzen", otherwise there is a mismatch.--Wolbo (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Sorry, guess I was distracted when reading the comment (we've got a digitization project we're launching on Monday, so most of my day was spent handling that). Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • --Wolbo (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Wolbo, I believe I've addressed all of your comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • An additional point. In the main source for the article (Boom & Wachlin 2004.) it is mentioned in the introductory section that "Pas sinds kort is het oeuvre van Jacobus Anthonie Meessen bij onderzoekers en verzamelaars bekend. Het werk van deze fotograaf is tijdens zijn leven nauwelijks tot zijn recht gekomen en heeft daarna nog decennia onopgemerkt in depots gelegen." which roughly translates to "Only recently <relating to the article date of 2004> has the work of Jacobus Anthonie Meessen become known with researchers and collectors. The work of this photographer was not really done justice during his life and has remained undiscovered in depots for decades." This is corroborated in the list of exhibitions in the same source which jumps from 1883 to 1998. This seems worth mentioning in the article, probably in the 'legacy' section.--Wolbo (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree about the "little studied"; have added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it known why Meessen went to the Dutch East Indies in 1864? This book (1) mentions he worked there for Waterstaat, which seems plausible. Would be nice to get a confirmation from a reliable source. The book itself is also interesting, apparently a facsimile of a work by Meessen. Could this be the same book as published in 1875, but with a different title, or is it a separate book? Could not find any more info on it.--Wolbo (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It says that it's from 150 year old manuscript, filled with his findings, but doesn't mention any photographs being included... that suggests to me it's a different book altogether. This is very interesting, though since I can't get immediate access to it (September is probably the earliest I'd be able to get a copy), I'm not sure the article meets the FA criteria of comprehensiveness now. A source by the subject is enough for non-controversial things like where he worked, and this would hopefully have more biographical information. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Previous reviewers (Wehwalt, Dank, Curly Turkey) what do you think of withdrawing this until we can get the book? I missed that a new book was published in January (admittedly by the subject, but still). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Either way; I'd be happy to review again in September, if you'd rather pull it now. I don't usually weigh in on comprehensiveness. - Dank (push to talk) 01:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've ordered the book, but no guarantees on how soon I'll get it (on a side note: only $7 for shipping to Indonesia from the Netherlands? Wow!). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they have an old copy lying around in Batavia..... --Wolbo (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Crisco, is this a formal request to withdraw? I mean the nom is barely two weeks old so that's not an issue in itself, it's more that further reviews might be academic if this additional source introduces much new material to the article... Anyway, let me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it's not formal yet. I personally think that this is still fine (When I did Departures, the commentary track didn't add much, and we don't have any guarantees either way yet here), but others may disagree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the 'Style and photography' section could include some info on the print technique Meessen used for his photographs. This site mentiones he used albumen print.--Wolbo (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The RKD site specifically mentions 'topographical views' as one of Meessen's subjects as do Boom & Wachlin (2004) but it is not mentioned in the article. Perhaps you can include that somewhere.--Wolbo (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd have thought landscape photography covered that. Meessen predated the New Topographics movement by over a century, and I don't see many English sources using the term "topographic photography" in another context. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • My final comment; This book review of Batavia In Nineteenth Century Photographs by Scott Merrillees mentions (p. 929) that both Woodbury and Page and the Meessen studio are known to have produced 'ethnographic types or portraits'. 'Ethnographic' seems an apt description for Meessen's photography of and commentary on indigenous people and could be a useful term to include with a wikilink to ethnography.--Wolbo (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disregarding the issue of the discovery of Meessen's 1858–1862 travel book on this FAC, I leave that up to more experienced FAC reviewers, I can give the article my full support. All my points have been properly addressed. The article is well-written and structured, comprehensive (per available sources) and sufficiently sourced. Well done. --Wolbo (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you Wolbo! The article looks considerably better — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of San Patricio[edit]

Nominator(s): Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the smaller battles of the Texas Revolution and a terrific illustration of Texan incompetence. One side literally got caught sleeping. The commander escaped due to a series of crazy coincidences. It's a scene worthy of a novelist's imagination. Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "Goliad Campaign": Readers who don't know what that is won't have a clear idea of what the first sentence is saying. I think of it as Mexico's main or first offensive in the war ... would that be inaccurate?
  • "His campaign was to neutralize the Texian soldiers gathered along the coast.": In the sense of "his campaign would later neutralize ...", or "the goal of his campaign was ..."?
  • Not an issue for me, but there's at least one hidden comment.
  • "While Santa Anna personally led the bulk of his troops inland to San Antonio de Béxar, he ordered General José de Urrea": To resolve the arguably ambiguous "while", I'd either go with "was personally leading" or drop the "while" and change "he" to "and".
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I did some copyediting to address your concerns. [6] I also removed one of the hidden comments. The other is commenting out an image. I am still working on verifying the licensing, so the image is hidden unless that happens. I can remove that completely if it is an issue to have it hidden. Thanks for taking a look at the article! Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks very nice. I think both the title of the article and the way it's presented in the infobox suggest that "Battle of San Patricio" is a proper noun, so I went with "Battle". I don't mind if you revert, but if so, I'd want to resolve the tension with the infobox. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
  • English-speaking settlers in the Mexican border region of [[Mexican Texas|Texas]]: I wonder if there's a better way to link that so readers don't assume it's linking to Texas. Maybe "border region of Mexican Texas"?
  • In the early nineteenth century, captured pirates were executed immediately.: in general, or in Mexico?
  • Why is File:Frank W Johnson.JPG commented out? And are there really no other images you could include besides the map?
  • The fighting ended within fifteen minutes.: short one-sentence paragraphs are generally frowned upon at FAC.
    • Personally, I'd prefer this stays like it is, I think it was a good judgment call. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I fixed this to follow your suggestion
  • Execution of pirates was a general thing, not just in Mexico.
    • It'd be nice to clarify this, but I can't think of a wording that would do it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have been having difficulty verifying the PD status of the Frank W. Johnson image, so I commented it out for now. I know it was taken before 1884 and given to an artist before 1908, and that it has resided in the Texas archives since 1927, but I don't know who took the picture and haven't been able to track down if it has been published before. I found one picture purporting to be of General Urrea, but I can't verify it either.
Thanks for your ce help! Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for tolerating my hairsplitting. I'm giving this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Loving the story, but I have to admit I've very confused about the political situation being described...

  • "Leading federalists in Mexico"
Ok, so it seems the Texians were, essentially, being swept up in a larger movement covering much of Mexico? But then...
  • "Most importantly, it would move the war zone outside of Texas"
This seems to imply the opposite.
  • "The Texas provisional government"
Sooo... has Texas succeeded? Is Texas mostly "american" by this point? I think a little more background is warranted here.
  • "Mexican troops had been told that the house where Johnson was quartered was one of their targets, yet a lamp burned in the window "
What is this "yet"? It seems a leap to suggest that the Mexican troops would have been confused by a lamp, "yet" it seems to be what this is trying to imply.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look! You brought up some great points. I fleshed out the background section a little more. Do you think that helps enough?

  • The "yet" does mean they were confused. It said earlier in the section that loyalists were instructed to leave a lamp burning. So now they have intelligence that says the rebel leader is in THIS house, BUT the house has a lamp, implying federalists were living there. Do I need to reword it somehow?

Karanacs (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a great improvement IMHO. The issue with the lamp... I see I missed the part about the lamp burning. Perhaps simply a re-mention... "seeing the lamp burning, and having been told the loyalists would have one,..." Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I see why I missed it... is it there? I can't find "lamp" or "light" anywhere earlier in the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Elliott Fitch Shepard[edit]

Nominator(s): ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I wrote this article merely to fill a gap in Wikipedia's biography collection. For someone who I couldn't find a single photograph of or really any detailed source about at first, I was surprised that as I researched, I found that Elliott Fitch Shepard was very well documented. I found numerous photographs and accounts in very surprising places, and to be honest this article should now be one of the most useful and comprehensive accounts of his life. After reaching Good Article status and going through a thorough GOCE copyedit, I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. This is my fourth FA nomination; the first two were for the October 19 TFA Briarcliff Manor, New York, and I nominated this same article a few months ago but had to pick through plenty of problems; all those that were mentioned are now resolved. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm) 16:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

a minor point, which I'm not even sure on: Is there anything in any MOS anywhere about how to use a wife's maiden name over married surname? ie in the lead instead of "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard, granddaughter of..." should it be "...married to Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt, granddaughter of..." or even "...married to Margaret Vanderbilt, granddaughter of...". Likewise with the spouse entry in the infobox? cheers, Gecko G (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a good question that I didn't know the answer to at first. The MOS's WP:FULLNAME states "A woman should be referred to by her most commonly used name, which will not necessarily include her husband's surname." In her case, the most commonly used name is "Margaret Louisa Vanderbilt Shepard", as can also be indicated by the fact that that's the title of her Wikipedia article.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 18:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
ok, good find, it definately fits for the infobox mention then. But for the lead I'm not fully convinced. Based on the very next section in that MOS under "Changed names":
If a person is named in an article in which they are not the subject, they should be referred to by the name they were using at the time of mention rather than a name they may have used before or after the mention
so I would take that to mean that it should be "he married [insert wife's name using maiden surname]", but I suppose that in this particular case, since it's ...he was married to... (emphasis added) -ie written in the past tense- it's ok, I guess, If I'm understanding that MOS correctly - It just sounds wierd to my ears when I read it. In any event, a very minor concern- ultimately either way ought to work good enough. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I understand why you'd think that. The term 'was' is only in the past tense because Shepard is dead. If he was alive right now, I'd use the word 'is'. That's because I'm not trying to list his biographical history in saying he became married to someone; I was simply stating the fact that Shepard's wife was M. Shepard. Therefore it should still work with the MOS. That's also why the next reference to the wife is when he's first presented to her, and thus I don't use the name 'Shepard' as part of her name.
Yet I just looked at quite a few of Wikipedia's US President articles (GAs and FAs) and they all seem to omit the married surname, so I guess I should.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 03:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
ok, I see your reasoning for the way it was and I find it sound. But since you changed it I hope you don't mind I went in and changed them all to piped direct links rather than using redirects. Cheers, Gecko G (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Only Girl (In the World)[edit]

Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... Rihanna's highly successful (and one of her most in her entire singles discography) singles, "Only Girl (In the World)", which hit either number-one or number-two is nearly every country that it was released it, and achieved platinum or multi-platinum status. Second nomination. I believe that I have addressed concerns in the previous nomination to the best of my capability.  — ₳aron 21:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Media review from SNUGGUMS[edit]

I'll kickstart this and get a checking done first:

As for relevance and captioning, the pics of Mariah, Beyoncé, and Gaga don't exactly benefit the article. It also is overkill to have three images all in the same spot. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks SNUGGUMS. I've removed the triple image. I can't listen to audio files I don't know which part of the song plays.  — ₳aron 17:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The lyrics it contains are "Like I'm the only one that you'll ever love, Like I'm the only one who knows your heart, Only girl in the world, Like I'm the only one that's in command, 'Cause I'm the only one who understands, How to make you feel like a man". Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay I'll remove it.  — ₳aron 17:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine with me. I'll look through this again within a few days for other aspects. Media all checks out fine now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks.  — ₳aron 07:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

British contribution to the Manhattan Project[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the British contribution to the Manhattan Project. It is part of a new series of topic articles, and was only created in December of last year. It has already passed GA and A-Class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: an image review was conducted as part of the A-class review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN36 is displaying wikicode, check formatting
  • FN53 should include publisher
  • FN80: I know this is what NLA produces, but the title should really only be The Canberra Times
  • Use a consistent formatting for USGPO - compare FN36 and 136
  • Books in Notes have no locations while books in References (mostly) include them - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


  • General
    • MOS:SURNAME – Sir John Anderson, Sir John Dill have their full names and titles repeated after first mention. These later mentions should be surname only. Similarly, Klaus Fuchs's full name is repeated.
    • Not clear of your rationale for capitalising: "permanent secretary" and "laboratory director" but "Technical Subcommittee", "head of the British Mission"; we have "Prime Minister" and "prime minister", too.
  • Lead
    • As the article is in BrEng, "program" in the last para of the lead (and the image caption for Oliphant and four later occurrences in the text) should be "programme". In BrEng "program" is for computers; all other uses take the traditional spelling.
  • Origins
  • Early Anglo-American cooperation
    • "He met with the Uranium Committee" – in British usage one meets with inanimate things – disaster, success – but just meets people.
    • "Ironically, it would be revealed" – WP:EDITORIAL.
  • Cooperation resumes
  • "However heavy" – if you must use "however", it needs a comma after it in such a construction.
  • Los Alamos Laboratory
    • "Chadwick arrived 12 January" – missing "on".

I hope these few points are helpful. Tim riley talk 14:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for that, especially the comments on British English. I was aware that the Americans use "met" to mean "first met", but had not seen a rule about it until now. Also for the note about "program" (which actually is the older form, the French spelling came in later). I was aware of the use of "program" in the computer sense (which comes from Turing & co. in Britain, not from America), but had mistakenly thought that British English had reverted back to the old form. I have corrected this, and all the other points mentioned, except for "ironically", as I meant this literally, and not as WP:EDITORIAL. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Pleased to add support. A fascinating article that meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 14:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Really nothing to add. Superbly written and engaging. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Labuan[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Labuan was among the last engagements of the Second World War, and was fought between Australian and Japanese forces during mid-June 1945. The Australians invaded the island in Brunei Bay as part of a campaign whose value remains controversial, and overcame its considerably outnumbered garrison after 11 days of at times fierce fighting. As such, it provides an interesting example of engagements late in the Pacific War, where the suicidally brave Japanese forces were totally outclassed by the firepower available to Allied units.

I've been working on this article since January, and am hoping that it can reach FA status by the 70th anniversary of the start of the battle. The article passed a GA nomination in January, and recently passed a Military history Wikiproject A-class review. I have since expanded and copy-edited the article, and hope that it meets the FA criteria. As I noted in the A-class review, I have a family connection with this battle, as my grandad was a member of one of the Australian infantry battalions involved.

Thanks in advance for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the diff since my last edit during the A-class review, and I supported on prose there. Very happy with this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Support My apologies for not reviewing this article at A-class. The article is very good, but I do have some concerns.

  • It seems odd that the Article makes no mention of the codename of the Operation, Oboe 6.
    • Good point: done Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have some problems with the background. The first two paragraphs are great; the last two may strike the reader as contradictory. To avoid this, I would trim the last sentence of the third paragraph so it reads: "Labuan was to be developed as a base for warships and aircraft, and form part of a string of strategic positions which would allow the Allies to control the seas off the Japanese-occupied coast of Asia between Singapore and Shanghai." It was however developed as a PT boat base. (Is that mentioned?)
    • Done. Do you have a source for the PT boat base on Labuan? The DANFS history of the only PT boat tender involved in this Brunei Bay operation says that the base was constructed on Muara Island [7] (though it's implied that she'd anchored off Labuan initially), and Bulkley's history doesn't give a location for the base [8] Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. I think you're right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Now for the more last paragraph of the background. Long is working from Ehrman, Grand Strategy (1954), pp. 224-227. Wilson informed the BCOS of Oboe 6 on 17 March, and the detailed plans reached them on 13 April. The response referred to was sent to Wilson on 27 April. The Americans then replied that a British base in the Philippines would not be available, and suggested that they reconsider. The BCOS then sent the 24 May message quoted by Long on p. 51. This brings us to the last sentence. Now Blamey visited MacArthur in Manila on 4 May and then Morshead on Morotai on 9 May. Morshead issued orders that emphasised that Labuan was not to be developed as a major base. Notwithstanding the weasel word "probably" (Coombes says "presumably", which I take to mean that he has no proof), I suggest that this sentence be deleted.
  • I would appreciate a bit more on the command arrangements. That the landing was carried out by Rear Admiral Forrest Royal's Amphibious Group 6 (And that since Royal died on 18 June, he is the most senior officer casualty in the North Borneo campaign). The air arrangements are worth a mention. Because GHQ cut LHQ out of the command arrangements ostensibly because it could deal with only one headquarters, the table were turned, and the 13th Air Force was placed under Bostock's command so there would be only one air commander.
  • I don't think "However, the 9th Division had been out of action since early 1944, and the prolonged period of training it had undertaken in North Queensland had led to poor morale and an erosion of combat skills among its combat units" is a fair summary of the source (Converse, p. 189) All he says is that the unit had become bored, while noting that its level of training was impressive. Tarakan and Labuan tended to indicate that the division that had cut through Rommel's army at El Alamein and stormed Sattelberg had lost
    • That's a fair point; tweaked. Converse does later say that the 9th Division's performance in Borneo was below its standards earlier in the war (pp. 221-223), but focuses on the 26th Brigade's difficult campaign on Tarakan and, to a lesser extent, the 2/28th Battalion on Labuan (which I think is illustrated in the article). Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I would like to expand the last section just a little, if you have no objection. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Please do Nick-D (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that, as well as your other changes and your review Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment As a note, I'm going to be out of town and may not be able to monitor this review from Tuesday to Friday. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz CLR[edit]

Nominator(s): The359 (Talk) 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a series of race cars which suffered unusual accidents in their one and only race and have become part of the history of the 24 Hours of Le Mans and motorsport in general as a famous failure. They are often very well recognized through video and pictures of the accidents, but not well understood. After supposedly being destroyed or abandoned since the accidents, one has reappeared in recent years. The359 (Talk) 17:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Florence Nagle[edit]

Nominator(s): Sagaciousphil, Eric Corbett, Richerman, Giano, Dr. Blofeld

Florence Nagle was a trainer of race horses at a time when women were not allowed to hold trainers licences, a breeder of champion dogs when women were not allowed to be members of The Kennel Club. and a feminist described by one commentator as "the Mrs Pankhurst of British horse racing". She must have been a formidable woman, as even in her eighties she was actively campaigning for a change to The Kennel Club's constitution to allow women members.

This article is the result of the labours of many editors since Giano created it in October last year, only some of whom are listed above as nominators. Much of the credit must go to Sagaciousphil though, who was too modest to write up this nomination herself. This is our offering to those who believe that Wikipedia's coverage of significant women ought to be improved. I hope you enjoy reading it, and perhaps even find Florence's robust defence of the rights of women to be a little inspiring. Eric Corbett 19:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "Miss Newton Deakin": some copyeditors ask people not to use Miss unless the lack of a husband is part of the storyline. I don't think it's wrong, just a little off. (Looking again ... if you're saying that's the name of the registration, then a small tweak might help make that clearer: change "registered as being owned by her friend Miss Newton Deakin, with whom she jointly owned some of her dogs" to "registered as being owned by Miss Newton Deakin, a friend with whom ...")
  • "kennel girls": I don't know what that means.
  • "£5", "£48", "£750": Not taking a position, just noting that some want to see conversion figures here.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Engaging, lucid, great choice of subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A kennel girl would be a girl who works in dog kennels, although I think kennel maid would be the correct term. Would that make more sense? Richerman (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's your call. My thinking was ... we're being introduced to a dog breeder in the lead, then we see the term "kennel girl" ... my first reaction was, "Wait, was there a kennel mentioned that I missed?" I read it again and saw that there wasn't, so it must have been the estate kennels. I don't know if other readers will do the same double-take. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding Miss Newton Deakin: I think bearing in mind the era and rigid class etiquette of the time, Miss Newton Deakin is probably the correct usage and adds to the favour of the subject, which is all a little eccentric. I suspect Miss N-D was very proud of being a "Miss" and like Florence herself a great feminist. We have to be careful of applying modern ideas to older concepts. Just a though of mine. Giano (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Did Stud & Stable Magazine really call her "Racing's Emily Pankhurst"? I assume they meant "Emmeline"; it's not your mistake, but it should be acknowledged by a [sic]. Brianboulton (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Stud and Stable didn't, but Lambie (2010), p. 480 did. I'm not sure that really needs a "sic", but I'll happily defer to others on that. Eric Corbett 21:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at the article, Brianboulton. I did a brief search using "Emily Pankhurst": Google books; jstor; British Newspaper Archive; and, which seems to indicate she was referred to as Emily fairly frequently? I'll just echo Eric's comment and defer to what others feel is best. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact that people have made the same mistake over and over again doesn't exonerate them. Lots of people said/say "Marie Celeste" (for Mary - see excellent WP article). But this is hardly the most important issue here; I thought it worth pointing out, and it's up to you whether you take it up. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It's quite possible that she was called Emily as a shortened form of her name although I've no evidence to back that up. As it's a direct quote, and most people will recognise the name anyway, it's probably best left as it is unless anyone feels strongly that it needs a sic. Richerman (talk) 12:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support by a too-involved editor for a neutral review and not-enough-involved editor to co-nom. I have edited this article early on, and I just wanted to pop by and say that I support the FAC nomination. I can also answer/clarify any horse-related questions if I'm pinged. Montanabw(talk) 21:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw. Eric Corbett 21:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment Support - citation 69, the "online casebook" link gives a 403 error, although the "extract" link works fine. Otherwise, it looks good. GregJackP Boomer! 14:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I hope the link I've changed it to is OK? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me. GregJackP Boomer! 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Cecil_Aldin05.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Sandsprite,_racehorse.jpeg could use {{non-free biog-pic}} instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the correct tags are on both now. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support from Hamiltonstone. Generally fabulous prose and construction.

  • "awarded the Challenge Certificate at three consecutive Crufts". Although Crufts is linked, a lay reader (well, me) will have no idea what a Challenge Certificate is or why it matters - can we give the reader any clue here about this?
  • "Irish Wolfhounds bred by Nagle were also successful in America; the first of her dogs were exported there in 1933". Not sure of this - as currently constructed, the sentence appears to mean that Nagle's first dogs were exported to America in 1933, whereas I think what is meant is that Nagle first exported dogs to America in 1933?
  • Might a link be added to gun dog?
  • Fantastic account of her activism, and a great anecdote at the very end. Nice work. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Hamiltonstone. I've added a note hopefully sufficiently explaining what a CC is, re-jigged the sentence about exports and added the link. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I Ching[edit]

Nominator(s): Shii (tock) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Last month I nominated this article for FA and made a number of suggested tweaks. The only remaining issue at the end of that FAC was that one of the sources used, Redmond & Hon 2014 (published by Oxford University Press), had not yet been the subject of any academic reviews. There now is at least one academic review, here. I hope this article is now clear of anything that might stand in the way of FA. Shii (tock) 02:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: This article is looking good, but I can't help feeling that it is a little thin; both the "Divination" and "Influence" sections are for instance each only a paragraph long. I'm really no expert in this subject but on those grounds I fear that it might not be as comprehensive as it could be. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The reason those sections are so short is because they are lead-ins to other articles, I Ching divination and I Ching's influence. Although certainly, if there's more info from those articles that could be included in summary style, I'd be happy to help do that. Shii (tock) 23:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Leaning towards support, since most of the problems have already been addressed in the previous FAC. The only remaining issue is the length of the "Divination" and "Influence" sections. The influence of the text is already partially covered in the "Interpretation" section, so would it be possible to merge the two as "Interpretation and influence"? For example, the Carl Jung quote could be moved next to the line: The psychologist Carl Jung took interest in the possible universal nature of the imagery of the I Ching, and he introduced an influential German translation by Richard Wilhelm by discussing his theories of archetypes and synchronicity.--Khanate General talk project mongol conquests 18:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • You're right, they do cover a lot of the same territory. I have attempted a smooth merge. If anyone has suggestions for what information might be added to the Divination section, I will be happy to seek out a source to back it up. I already had to remove the claim that the I Ching is "widely used in divination" because it was called into question and I couldn't find a source for it. Shii (tock) 00:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I decided to simply merge the Divination section into influence the "usage" section, which allowed me to remove some duplicate info. Shii (tock) 11:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Persuasion (1995 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I present to you the 1995 film Persuasion, an adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. This is easily one of my favorite films, and it consistently scores high on lists of the best Austen adaptations. The article attained GA status in 2011, and since then I've largely rewritten it, modeling its structure after two other FAs I've written (Sense and Sensibility and Pride & Prejudice). Unlike those films, sourcing was difficult to find, especially on its production. A recently closed PR review was very helpful, thanks to J Milburn. I hope the article is near the level of FA status, and leave it to you fine reviewers to decide if I am correct. So that said, thank you all in advance for reviewing! I plan to help with reviews on this page as well. Disclosure: this is a Wikicup nomination. Ruby 2010/2013 01:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Drive by comments As a war nerd, the details on HMS Victory are a bit inaccurate. The ship technically isn't "retired": she's still (incredibly enough) a commissioned Royal Navy warship. Saying that her role is "entertaining tourists" is a bit awkward as she's the centrepiece of a large maritime museum and an important historic artefact - this is a bit like saying that the role of the Elgin Marbles is to entertain tourists. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment and correction, Nick-D. I have now addressed this, by removing "retired" and clarifying that the vessel was just busy entertaining tourists at the time the filmmakers wished to use it. This was definitely an oversight, something I must have introduced when first writing the article in 2011 (the HMS Victory was one of the few pieces of information that I had not rewritten recently). Let me know if you notice anything else, naval or otherwise. Ruby 2010/2013 02:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I still don't think that "then busy entertaining tourists" is accurate: 'then' is wrong as the ship is permanently on display, and 'entertaining' makes it sound like its a fun-ride rather than a museum (I've toured the ship, which I highly recommend, and it wasn't really a lot of laughs). I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "It was dry docked as part of a museum in Portsmouth, and filming was only possible during short periods when the vessel was closed to the public" Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I have employed your suggested language, Nick-D. Ruby 2010/2013 20:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:NorthangerPersuasionTitlePage.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added the {{PD-US}} tag. Ruby 2010/2013 21:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Only have a couple of minutes, so two initial quick comments- I'll be back for a full review later. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "of other 19th-century depictions" It's not a 19th century depictions. How about something like "most other costume dramas set in the 19th century" or "most other Austen adaptations"?
  • The source says "Most of all, Michell wanted to create a film without the glossy, artificial feel of most portrayals of 19th-century life." Could you clarify why you don't feel the film is a 19th-century depiction? Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This film is a 20th century depiction of the 19th century. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, thanks for clarifying what you meant! I have rewritten this to "...artificial feel of other period dramas set in the 19th-century." Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "debts owed by the" Ambiguous- are the debts owed by, or are they accosted by?
  • I'm not sure I understand your query? The debts are owed by Sir Walter, and his lawyer is accosted by others as he travels to Kellynch Hall. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts owed by the residence's owner" It is unclear from this whether "the residence's owner" is accosting "Shepard and Clay" for "debts owed", or whether "debts owed by the residence's owner" lead to "Shepherd and Clay" being accosted. Is my concern clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks for clarifying (it always helps to have another pair of eyes!). I kept rereading it and couldn't figure out what was wrong with it. I have rephrased this to "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts that are owed by the residence's owner..." Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's still ambiguous! "Shepherd and Clay are accosted for debts that are owed by the residence's owner"- this could mean 1) that debts are owed by Shepherd and Clay, and are therefore accosted by the residence's owner, or 2) that debts are owed by the residence's owner and thus a nameless someone accosts Shepherd and Clay. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Damn, you're right. Is this clearer? "Shepherd and Clay are accosted by creditors due to the debts owed by the residence's owner..."? Ruby 2010/2013 18:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Dear first suggested they try two of Austen's other works—Sense and Sensibility or Pride and Prejudice—but agreed to adapt Persuasion after reading it." There's some ambiguity here- both, or either but not both?
  • Have added "either" to clarify. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "I just had to keep looking at the book and then somehow radiate the feelings" What book is she talking about, here?
  • I assume she means the novel here. I have added [novel] to help clarify. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "other 19th-century depictions" As above!
  • " Louise Watson, writing for Screenonline," Two things- firstly, why the italics? Second, is Watson a scholar? The previous line implies that she is, but Screenonline isn't a particularly scholarly source. Do you even need the opening line?
  • I thought websites were italicized? Or maybe not? I assumed that Screenonline was reliable because it was established by the British Film Institute, but I had difficulty discovering much on Watson. Surely if she was included on this list (page 2), that must mean she has appropriate credentials, right? She has written many articles on other adaptations as well on the website. I am fine removing the opening line to avoid any implication of her being a scholar, however. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that the source is reliable, I just wonder whether it could be considered "scholarly". (I recall, actually, that I've argued with others about italicising websites. Personally, I really dislike it- we don't italicise "Wikipedia", for example. However, the MOS is ambiguous.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have un-italicized the website and removed the mention of scholarly sources. Let me know if anything else is needed here! Ruby 2010/2013 16:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "naval ship HMS Victory" Given that HMS stands for His/Her Majesty's Ship, you effectively say "naval ship His Majesty's Ship". This may or may not be standard- you'll have to ask a ship person.
    • As a war nerd, I agree: I'd suggest tweaking this to "The film's final scene was shot on HMS Victory". Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed as well, I have removed "naval ship". Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "This decision further increased funding to £1,000,000, and Persuasion was shot on 35 mm film." This is still jarring to me- it's simply not clear what the relationship between these two claims are.
  • I've decided to just removed "35 mm film" from the statement, as the source isn't clear on this either. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Mobil Oil Corporation, as a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre, also contributed to the film." As a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre? Do you mean to say that in their capacity as a sponsor to the other work, they contributed to the funding of this project? How does that work?
  • The source notes they are a sponsor of Masterpiece Theatre and specifically says they co-produced the film. I've had difficulty finding more details on the company's particular role with Persuasion apart from being a funding source. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's fine that they contributed to the film- this should be included. I'm just not clear on what it means that they contributed "as" a sponsor of MT. Perhaps you could just say something like "Mobil Oil Corporation, who had sponsored [or "who also sponsored"] Masterpiece Theatre, further contributed to the film." Josh Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is "Lyme" really a common abbreviation for "Lyme Regis"? I've never heard it, but I am from the other end of the country...
  • In the film, they all say they're going to "Lyme". Being an American, I'm not positive on the correct usage (you or another Brit would know better than I!) Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual; she is slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved". Conversely, Dear's screenplay has Wentworth quickly giving up his seat to Anne and then dancing with the Musgrove sisters, furthering the contrast between the two groups.[41]" I struggle to follow this.
  • Yeah, this was a difficult one to write. I've rewritten parts, so let me know if this helps: "For example, in the novel during an early party Anne offers to play the pianoforte like usual; while doing so, she is slightly tearful but also "extremely glad to be employed" and "unobserved". Conversely, Dear's screenplay has Wentworth quickly giving up his seat to Anne and then immediately dancing with the Musgrove sisters, furthering the contrast between Anne and the others."
  • "to film at many on-site locations" Why not "to frequently film on-location"?
  • "the camera focuses on their faces and expressions, personifying them" It's not clear who the "they" is, here.
  • Changed to "...focuses on the faces and expressions of servants and working people." Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Root described Anne as a "feminist in a prefeminist period" and a "strong, independent character", to whom modern viewers can relate despite the story's period setting.[15]" Could this line perhaps replace "The film's theme of gender has also attracted scholarly attention."?
  • Sure thing, removed that sentence. Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a great article, and I'd really like to see it get to FA status, but the writing's still a little short of stellar in a couple of places. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review, Josh! I have addressed or responded to your concerns above. Incidentally, I've been meaning to review your FAC nom of "A Quiet Night In" for a while, and hope to get to it very soon. Kind regards, Ruby 2010/2013 20:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. I've fiddled long enough- great work! Josh Milburn (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help getting the article (nearly) there! Ruby 2010/2013 04:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments from Crisco
  • Dear and Root were forced to translate the character's emotions using comparatively little dialogue. - They weren't forced; they could have added other dialogue, for instance. "Felt compelled" or something similar would work better.
  • Originally just a BBC production - Just strikes me as non-formal in this situation. I'd refactor the sentence to use another wording. Also, this sentence feels like it could be trimmed a bit (a BBC production ... British broadcaster is rather redundant)
  • Anne visits her other sister, the hypochondriac Mary (Sophie Thompson), who has married into a local farming family, the Musgroves. - any way to avoid so many commas?
  • Mary later tells Anne that Wentworth thought Anne so altered he "would not have known [her] again". - any way to avoid two "Anne"s? Also, direct quotes need citations.
  • By her own admission, "every actress in England" read for the part. - "Her own admission" doesn't strike me as encyclopedic.
  • WGBH Boston, the American company co-producing the film, had wanted a better known actress for the part but agreed to Root's casting after seeing Root's screen test - wouldn't it be better to mention how they joined on earlier, so that this doesn't come out of nowhere?
  • Ref nytimesbuddha; I believe they reuse information from Allmovie; there's no actual editorial control there.
  • The American ending is reflected on the international poster, which shows the two protagonists embracing. - if we don't actually have the poster for comparison, rather hard to see for ourselves; isn't there a digital version online, instead of the DVD cover? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492, thank you so much for reviewing! I believe I have finished addressing your concerns about the article's prose and use of the NYT source (you can view my changes here – let me know if anything still needs work). The only thing I did not implement was the suggestion about the poster – are you suggesting I add both posters and include them in that section, side by side? Ruby 2010/2013 02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be possible, though not side by side. Ultimately it's up to you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmmm... I guess I'm just not sure the British poster would be necessary or add much to the article. Plus I'm having trouble finding a decent version of it online, since I do not own a copy. (There's this but it's not great). Let me know if you feel strongly about it. Ruby 2010/2013 02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Why do you state that the air dates were Easter and Christmas, respectively?
  • That is how the source characterizes them. I thought it was relevant to provide context for the reader, but I'm fine removing them if you feel strongly. Ruby 2010/2013 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Avoid repeating "format" when talking about home releases
  • Isn't the British style to use Mr and not Mr. (with a full stop)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed to Mr and Mrs per British style. Ruby 2010/2013 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose. Really good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: The article is very interesting and was a pleasure to read. Good work. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Bill Cosby in advertising[edit]

Nominator(s): Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Throughout the 1980s in particular, Bill Cosby was one of the most desired advertising pitchmen, representing an intriguing range of products. A few years ago, I noticed this part of his career wasn't mentioned in his main article at all. What I thought would be a large stub turned into a major article.

Article milestones include the promotion to good article status in June 2013, and a substantial cleanup by GOCE Hall of Famer Baffle gab1978. Submissions to peer review have not attracted comment, even before the extensive allegations against Cosby. Given that his career is now pretty much over, it's not a stretch to consider the article complete in coverage.

Thoughts? Where does the article stand? Is it close to featured quality? -- Zanimum (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry of the Godwins[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the ancestry of Harold Godwinson, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England. He is not known to have had any hereditary claim to the throne, but some genealogists have claimed that he was descended from Alfred the Great's elder brother. The genealogy expert Agricolae (who is sadly no longer editing) contributed, and Ealdgyth and Tim riley made very helpful comments at peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Support – Very pleased to support. I'm wholly a layman in history of this vintage, but the article seems to me comprehensive, and is widely and thoroughly cited. It is a pleasure to read, guiding the reader smoothly through a maze of Æth***s that in less skilful hands could have been frightfully confusing. The nominator's articles on early English topics have a wonderful way of transporting one back from the clamour of the 21st century to the quite different clamour of a millennium or so ago. This one meets all the FA criteria, in my judgment, and I much enjoyed rereading it for present purposes. – Tim riley talk 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments form Curly Turkey[edit]

  • I know almost nothing about this sort of subject. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my comments.
  • Thanks for your edits Curly. The only one I have reverted is "he descended from". The Cambridge online dictionary says "he was descended from" is correct.
  • When King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 the legitimate heir was his great-nephew, Edgar Ætheling, but he was passed over, and Harold, the head of the most powerful family in England and Edward's brother-in-law, became king.: which so many commas, this is a bit of a bumpy ride, especially at the beginning of the article. Maybe something like: "When King Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 the crown passed over his legitimate heir and great-nephew Edgar Ætheling and instead went to Harold, the head of the most powerful family in England and Edward's brother-in-law."?
  • "the crown passed over" does not sound quite right to me. Are you happy with my alternative?
  • sometimes you set of names with commas ("his great-nephew, Edgar Ætheling") and sometimes not ("their father Godwin"). Best to settle on one style.
  • Done.
  • was left land at Compton: I can see from later in the article that it's not clear if these are the same Comptons, but at this point the reader would assume it is.
  • Clarified.
  • Williams in her ODNB article on Godwin, and Robin Fleming in her ODNB article on Harold, do not mention the theory when discussing Godwin's ancestry.: this could be Original Research if the lack of mentioning the theory is not mentioned in a RS.
  • I do not see this. Saying a theory is mentioned would not be OR, so saying it is not mentioned should not be either.
  • Thanks for much for your helpful comments Curly. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I imagine whatever comes of the last point will conform to whatever the consensus is, and as it's the only outstanding point I see no reason not to give this article my support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is a consensus but a balance in favour of keeping the ODNB comment so I will leave it in unless anyone objects. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Harold2.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Just a couple of comments.

  • The first footnote is rather lengthy, and seems quite relevant enough to be promoted into the main text; it makes more than one point, and I think would be useful to the reader inline.
  • "commissioned by his widow Edith": suggest "by Godwin's widow" since several other names have been mentioned since the last time Godwin was referred to by name.
  • It is "The Life of Edward the Confessor, commissioned by his widow Edith". She was Edward's widow (and Godwin's daughter). Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You give a good account of the Æthelred I theory, but given that it doesn't have broad support I think it might be appropriate to cap that section with something more definite than just saying Stenton, Williams and Fleming don't mention the theory; for example, quoting Stenton: "Of his origin nothing can be said with any assurance". That's the majority view, after all.
  • Do you know if Frank and Lundie Barlow are related?
  • I don't think so. Frank Barlow wrote that he only knew about Lundie's article because Hubert Grills sent him a photocopy. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Tales of Wonder (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Tales of Wonder was the first British science fiction magazine aimed at the adult market. It was successful and encouraged at least one other publisher to launch a science fiction magazine in the UK, but World War II brought paper shortages and mobilization for the editor, Walter Gillings, and the magazine was forced to close. The magazine is now a collector's item; it includes early work by John Wyndham, and the first professional sales by Arthur C. Clarke. The article is short, but I believe I've exhausted the available sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support, I would agree that you've exhausted sources, and that the article is as long as it needs to be to sufficiently inform readers. As with all your articles, the prose itself is very readable. -- Zanimum (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks! And thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Well done, the article meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: Overall it looks good. I have just a couple of concerns:
    • two of the paragraphs are overly long; one in each of the primary sections. Please consider splitting them appropriately for less tedious reading.
      Done; I had a bit of trouble deciding where to split the first one, but I think the result is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The first footnote (Ashley, Time Machines) is missing a year. Two of the subsequent entries are missing 'pp.' for the page range. Please make them consistent.
      Oops; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Talesofwonder.jpg: FUR is very minimal - should do a better job of explaining the rationale for inclusion and how it meets NFCC. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Interesting, I just assumed it was public domain. The UK rule is 70 years from the artist's death, but is it actually the corporation that would own the rights to this image, in which case, does the 70 years start immediately, as is practice in some countries? -- Zanimum (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
      @Nikkimaria: I've expanded the FUR as much as I think I can; it's my understanding that a low-resolution image of a magazine is accepted as a fair use image if all magazine covers are copyrighted, so that the reader can see what the magazine looked like. @Zanimum: that would be great, but I'm not sufficiently expert on copyright to know. If it turns out to be true, please let me know -- in that case I could add a couple more magazine covers to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Either way, the image would still have been copyrighted in the UK on 1 Jan 1996 and so is still copyrighted in the US - see WP:NUSC. Mike, can you please include on the image description page the date of the cover, copyright holder if known, and something other than "no" for "portion used"? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments Seems comprehensive and well-written. A few comments:
  • "Payment rates were low" I would make this clearer that this was rates for stories and whatnot. Perhaps if the bit about the material came first and then the phrase quoted above, this would be clearer.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The number of issues seems like a useful addition late in the first paragraph.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "in the U.K. market." I would cut both because it is implied and because it repeats the word "market".
    I cut "market" but left "U.K." since the U.S. market was already established; the question was whether a native British magazine could survive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Publication history
  • "also available in the U.K." I would cut "in the U.K." as surplusage and a repetition.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "the publisher of The Strand magazine" italicisation?
    Oops. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "in the group" cut for similar reasons as "in the U.K."
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "a single issue" Is issue the proper U.K. term, or "number"?
    One sees both, but to my ear "number" is a little more formal, and "issue" sounds more natural. I'd be OK with changing it if needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "10/6" "10s 6d (ten shillings sixpence" might make it clearer to the reader without needing to click the link and puzzle out from the article what 10/6 was.
    Done. 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • " but newer writers were glad of the chance to develop a British market for their work, though most American writers were unimpressed." I'm not sure you should have both "but" and "though" leading phrases in the same sentence, especially back to back.
    I hesitated over this and finally came up with a rewording; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • A space is needed prior to the third sentence in the third paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cincinnati Musical Center half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... a commemorative coin that didn't commemorate anything, and was conceived, by all accounts, as a way of extracting money from collector's pockets. Which it quite successfully did. These things happened in other issues, but this may be the extreme example.Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I would like to support this based on a overall prose quality, but I am wondering about the citation to a letter which can be found in a box at a certain library. This is harmless original research, but it still is literally original research. Is a copy of this letter available? Shii (tock) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It is illustrated in the article. It was part of the research for my journal article, "The Birth of the Oregon Trail Half Dollar" (The Numismatist, October 2013, pp. 42–49) but I did not wind up using it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Theodore_thomas.jpg needs US PD tag and author's date of death
Switched tag to PD-US. The book it's taken from was published in Camden, NJ in 1919.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Melish_OTMA_letter.jpg: when/where was this first published?
I doubt it's been, so I've switched to PD-ineligible. A simple rejection letter surely doesn't have copyright protection.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • File:1936_Cincinnati_PDS_(SET).jpg: USGov tag should be removed - covered more specifically by currency tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It has a currency tag already.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

A few minor points.

  • "but quickly recovered and they are valuable today": perhaps "the coins are valuable today", since the antecedent for "they" is really the value, not the coins.
  • "Among the pieces, which had recently been struck, and which had appreciated in value, was the 1935 Old Spanish Trail half dollar": I'd eliminate the first comma, and in fact all three could go.
  • "This piece was issued at the behest of L. W. Hoffecker": I think "had been issued" would fit better.
  • "as Melish related Lawrie put it": a little awkward; how about "as (in Melish's account) Lawrie put it"?
  • Melish was defiant, so presumably the CFA's approval was only advisory, and Melish could do as he wished? It doesn't appear that Moore changed his mind. Can you clarify?
The first paragraph of the section says that the CFA advised the government on coinage design. I've tossed a little more in.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. Where I haven't replied specifically I've followed your advice, or made a similar edit.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The changes look good. Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Southern Cross (wordless novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The sole wordless novel by Canadian artist Laurence Hyde, who was late to the party—the major practitioners of the form had already moved on to other things, and there have been few such works since (a surprising number of which have been Canadian). This is a work of indignation against the nuclear tests in the Bikini Atoll, though you'll likely read it for the artwork rather than the story. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I don't have a position on whether it's better to give dates or just years for birth and death.
  • "Hyde was familiar with some of the American Lynd Ward's books and German Otto Nückel's Destiny (1926). The only work he knew of Flemish artist Frans Masereel ...": I guess all I can say right now is that I have no confidence that FAC reviewers and writers are on the right track on "false title" issues. There are a variety of opinions among professional writers and copyeditors, and there's no easy fix that I know of ... but, in general terms, what we're doing isn't working.
  • "In talk with the CBC": Not sure what that means.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. Concise and cleanly written; I've read it twice and can see nothing to complain about. One question did occur to me: it sounds as though this was about the last of its genre. Was it the very last? Can a short note be added about the subsequent life of the genre, if any? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No—there were very few wordless novels in the following decades, but it wasn't even the last Canadian one: George Kuthan made Aphrodite's Cup (which I haven't read) in 1964, and George Walker has been active in the genre in the last several years.
Thanks for the support! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

1880 Greenback National Convention[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the political convention of a minor political party in 1880. The eventual nominee, James B. Weaver, collected only three percent of the presidential vote that year, but the issues debated in the convention's platform fights—women's suffrage, child labor, immigration, and the eight-hour-day—would become nationwide discussions for later generations. Enjoy! Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Nineteenth-century monetary politics is a subject that I always enjoy reading and learning about. You've done a great job with this article, and I can safely support. That said, I have a couple of minor comments about things that caught my attention.

  • Origins: "...had reason to hope to improve on the results of 1876." Does this mean that some promising results meant that the Greenbackers believed they could do better in 1880? If so, I'd suggest rewording to "...had reason to believe that they could improve on the results of 1876."
  • Preliminaries: "After the Exposition, it hosted festivals and concerts for several years until it was demolished in 1892." I would probably relegate all of this to a footnote.

Other than that, everything looks good and proper to me. Nicely done!-RHM22 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I've made both of those changes. Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:AlexanderCampbell.png: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • LOC just says "between 1865 and 1880", like most of the Brady-Handy collection. I updated the file. Thanks! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Well done. Just a few quibbles.
  • "to select a presidential nominee" well, true, but also a vice presidential, and also a party platform, which could be as important as the candidate. Can a phrasing be found that implies that there are other things a convention does?
  • Fixed? I doubt think there's a concise way to say it, so I just said it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the 1860 presidential campaign, Butler sought compromise with the slave power and endorsed Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippi for president." Was Jeff Davis running for president? US president that is? If it was pre-conventions, possibly mention that and who Butler supported in the general election.
  • I didn't think Davis was running, but you know how it was in those days. Nobody ran, they just stood around and waited to be nominated (of course, we both know that's not the whole truth). The source on Butler didn't say, and it didn't say who he ended up voting for, though it mentions he became a Republican within a year. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • " in 1878 he ran for Governor of Massachusetts as an independent Greenbacker with Democratic support" Did he win?
  • He lost. I added that fact. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Did Wright not seek re-election in 1862 or was he defeated?
  • The sources aren't completely clear, but I think he didn't run. A Democrat replaced him, so if he lost, it was at the party nomination stage. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Other contenders
  • "Several other favorite son candidates" question need for word "other".
  • "The Committee on Permanent Organization voted to make Richard F. Trevellick, a Michigan trade union organizer, the permanent chairman of the convention." presumably the vote of the entire convention was needed to make him permanent chairman? In which case the "ask" should be "recommend" with an "as" before "the permanent"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point. Fixed. That should be all of them. Thanks, Wehwalt, for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. A well-written and interesting article. I can find almost nothing to comment on, but here are a couple of minor points that don't affect my support.

  • "In 1878, the situation was reversed: Wright ran as a Greenbacker, but was also supported by Democrats": was he elected this time? It appears from the following sentences that he was, but I think you might make it definite.
  • Any explanation for the half-vote for Wright in the first formal ballot?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your support. I fixed the first point, but the second is a mystery. I've seen half-votes in other conventions where two rival delegations from the same state are both admitted but have to split their state's apportionment of votes (Massachusetts had this in the 1880 Democratic National Convention, for example). I don't know if that's what happened here, but it's possible. I don't have enough evidence to add that explanation, though, it's just a guess. The sources I've read ignore it. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    I had a poke through, and found two accounts of the convention; interestingly, the story they tell doesn't quite match your source. The Indiana Democrat for 6/17/1880, page 2, and the La Plata Home Press for 6/19/1880, page 2, give accounts you might like to look at; I can clip them if you don't have access. Does your source cite the underlying source? That was probably a newspaper too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd be glad to take a look (I don't have access to The source I used, Lause, doesn't have a footnote for that paragraph, oddly enough, so I'd be curious what the newspapers say. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    Here are the links: [9] and [10]. The counts seemed to be slightly different, and one account mentions that the formal vote didn't finish but ended in acclamation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm remembering now that I had trouble nailing down the exact numbers when I wrote it. I think I'll just work it up as prose and eliminate the chart altogether. Thanks for finding those sources! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Richie Farmer[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The tragic story of a hometown hero turned basketball icon who parlayed his fame into political office (Commissioner of Agriculture, naturally!) but abused the public trust and now sits in federal prison. This article just passed a GA review with few issues, and I hope to take it to FA status and claim a much-delayed WP:FOUR award. (I created the article a few days after joining Wikipedia in 2006!) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comments on sources:
    • Overall the formatting is good. Things are quite consistently formatted.
    • A concern I do have is the level you've relied on the Lexington Herald-Leader for your sources. The first footnote that isn't an article from that paper is n57. I estimate that you've used that paper for 220 of your sources out of the 262 footnotes, or about 84% of your citations. I'm not saying that the paper isn't a high-quality reliable source, but this level of reliance for a state-wide politician makes me wonder if you've truly surveyed the full literature about the man.
      • I used the NewsBank access I have through my library. It has the Herald-Leader, but unfortunately, not the (Louisville) Courier-Journal. Those are the main papers in the state. It also has the Messenger-Inquirer, which serves Owensboro, the third largest city in the state by population until Bowling Green passed it last Census. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Speaking again of n57, etc, where is The Messenger-Inquirer published? It's fairly standard, in my experience, to list a publication location for newspapers unless the city is part of the newspaper name. For the Lexington Herald-Leader, the location is obvious: Lexington. For The Messenger-Inquirer, we have no clue. You can easily add this with |location= in the citation template. The same applies to The Kentucky Post in n117, etc.
      • Done. I didn't know including location was standard practice. I will do that from now on. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • In n89, you missed a "|" character, so the newspaper name and parameter is appearing on the end of the article title.
    • In n96, no newspaper name has been provided.
    • On n182, I think you have a typo. Shouldn't "Couch a True Diaper Dandy in New Role as Father..." be "Coach a True Diaper Dandy in New Role as Father..."?
    • On nn201&204, no location for The Gleaner, and no page number.
      • Location fixed, but NewsBank omits the page number in the Gleaner, for some reason. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • For n262, WKYT is listed as the publisher. As with newspapers, a location should really be provided.
    • Several headlines are using dashes to separate the title from the subtitle. Isn't it more common to use a colon for this? Did the Lexington Herald-Leader actually use a dash? (And according to The Chicago Manual of Style, if there is a second subtitle, it would be separated from the first with a semicolon.)
      • I can only say how NewsBank renders the titles, which actually appears to use a hyphen to separate title from subtitle. I figure that's short for a dash, since there is no dash key on the keyboard. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Image question: are there really no photographs of the man that can be used? As it is, the article is woefully under-illustrated, with just a photo of his former coach and his retired jersey. Have you tried contacting the university to see if they have a photo they'd be willing to license? The state government? Checked Flickr and similar photo-sharing sites to see if anyone has posted any photos that could be licensed?

    Imzadi 1979  17:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

    • I have not searched Flickr or contacted UK or state government about licensing an image, but I have searched for his federal mugshot, which would be PD, but I couldn't find that. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 02:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Imzadi1979: Very sorry to have been so long about addressing all of these. I expected to have plenty of time to work on them on vacation, but I got here and discovered the wi-fi is garbage. Got my first truly reliable connection this morning. Will be glad to follow up on items that require it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. I did the Good Article review for this one, and all my quibbles were resolved there. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Support I've done review and would love to support it, Since it should must have few more images (original) of different location that will make article bit more interesting to readers. --A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 06:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

Support. This is FA quality; there's an issue outstanding but it's a matter of editorial judgement and I think it can be left to an RfC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "Currently an inmate": need "as of 2015" for statements like this.
  • You have "See also: 1991–92 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team" for Farmer's senior year; any reason not to do this for the other three years you cover?
    • Only because I didn't realize someone had stubbed them in. 1991-92 was a defining year in UK basketball, so I knew it would have an article. Added the others. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "defending tournament champion Alabama, who was without forward Andre Perry": might be an ENGVAR thing, but shouldn't this be "which was"?
  • I'm no expert on basketball, but with a college career like Farmer's I would have expected some mention of the NBA, either to say that Farmer was not interested or to otherwise explain why he didn't enter the draft. Or was Farmer's performance not at the level of players who end up in the NBA?
    • The only mentions I saw of the possibility of an NBA career for any of The Unforgettables was Sean Woods, who got some interest from the Indiana Pacers. Farmer was beloved and a good shooter, but the truth is he was a bench player until halfway through his senior year. He is also on the small side for an NBA player at 6-feet even, and at that height, you have to be really quick off the bounce or have some other absolutely outstanding quality to make it in the NBA. I don't think he ever seriously got a look. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see you don't name Farmer's girlfriend in the last sections of the article; any reason not to? I see her name in this story, for example. Another story, here, indicates her name has changed since then. That story mentions she also was found guilty of ethic violations; perhaps that should be mentioned?
    • I had all that in at one point in my draft, but I became concerned about possible BLP issues and wanted to keep the article focused on Farmer as much as possible. You're the second one to raise the issue, though, so perhaps it merits another look. Would you consider supporting (or at least not opposing) this nom, and after it closes, we can open an RFC to get some broader input? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
      Yes, happy to support (and have done so above). I do think this is worth asking others about, but it's peripheral to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Any reason not to include links to online versions of your sources where possible? Not an FA requirement, just a suggestion.
    • I found them all in subscription-based NewsBank. I'm not sure how many are available for free online. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The prose is in excellent shape. I made a couple of minor edits; please revert as needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. It's always good to have your comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Xx (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (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. The first FAC did not reach a consensus. The last FAC I withdrew because of a conflict with another editor. A few tweaks and additions since then. Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cambalachero[edit]

Image review: File:Xx album cover.svg seems fine. File:The xx performing at Brighton Komedia in March 2010 11.jpg seems fine. File:The xx - Heart Skipped a Beat sample.ogg is a non-free sound with a good rationale. File:The xx Dec. 2 09.jpg seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Background: Are there no articles for the band members? "rehearsed quietly with Smith and Qureshi in their bedrooms so they would not disturb the rest of the household" seems like gossip or trivia. "The group worked with producers such as Diplo and Kwes...", did they work with several others as well? If not, mention them without the "such as". Cambalachero (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No articles for the band members except Jamie xx, who is linked in the article. Their rehearsal habit ties into the musical aesthetic mentioned throughout the rest of the article, IMO. Yes, the group worked with "a few others" also. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Recording and production: "chose to record" is wordy, just say that they recorded there. "...and were the first act to record there" should be in a new sentence, and have a reference. The "McDonald felt it was important for the singers..." sentence should end with a reference. "He occasionally processed the sampler through an effects unit such as a Roland RE-201", again, is the "such as" appropiate? "Overproduce" is a common word, and should be unlinked. The event of the burglars seems like trivia as well, as nothing came out of it. Cambalachero (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed "chose to record". I revised it, but a new sentence would be too short and inhibit the flow for readers IMO. Frost 2011 is cited at the end of the passage it supports, so there's no need to repeat citations. I reduced the "such as" throughout the article and unlinked "overproduce". I would not have added that line about the burglars if two notable sources on this article's topic hadn't discussed it, so I figured it was notable enough based on its third-party coverage. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Music and lyrics: "Music journalists" is a common term and should be unlinked, unless you talk about some specific journalist. Cambalachero (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I unlinked it. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Promotion: Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Release and reception: Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Touring: Seems fine Cambalachero (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Cambalachero! Anything else needs attention, or do you feel now it should be promoted? Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Jacedc[edit]

  • I have a few comments. He used Logic 8 recording software on his Mac Pro and often worked in a nearby conference room while they recorded in the studio with drafts of his beats. Smith created his beats with an Akai MPC sampler, which had been given to him as a gift on his birthday. He occasionally processed the sampler through a Roland RE-201 and other effects units. Firstly, I don't feel it's entirely necessary to mention exactly which products he used, as such things don't really contribute to the overall sound and atmosphere of the album (at least, not the Logic 8+Mac Pro mention, I'm not sure about the others). Also, I don't think it's entirely necessary to mention that the sampler was given to Smith on his birthday. It's not really relevant to the article. Just some thoughts so far. I haven't read the whole article, but I have read up to here, and other than that it's a pretty decent article. Either more comments or a support vote will come shortly. Jacedc (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
IMO, specifying things like Logic 8 gives context to his producing on a laptop, which not every readers knows how that exactly works. With a link to Logic 8 in the article, it leads readers to more information on how a digital workstation works. As far as mentioning his birthday, I think an aside to some personal detail makes for a more interesting (if not vital) read. If you still feel it inhibits the read enough, however, I can remove it. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You are correct in that both parts provide interesting information, but the question is whether or not such information is appropriate for this article specifically. This article is about the album, so should we really sacrifice brevity and focus for the sake of further reading on an otherwise unrelated topic? Also, I'm not real sure I understand how mentioning the birthday thing is interesting/vital. Similar to the robbery comment; did the fact that it was for his birthday (specifically) effect the outcome of the album? If so, how? If not, I'd say remove it. But again, it's you're area of expertise so maybe I'm not seeing it in a way more involved editors see it. Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I meant "if not vital", so while it isn't vital, I just feels it adds some color to the text, like the second to last line in In Utero (album)#Recording about extracurricular activities for example; it intersperses prose that's very procedural as far as Smith's steps in producing the album. I would say it might be interesting because if Smith had not been given the sampler as a gift, perhaps it would not have been used on this album altogether. Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, but same argument applies. While it's valid information, sure, the question is whether or not it's appropriate information. In my opinion I don't think we should sacrifice focus and brevity for color (which I honestly don't see as color, I just see it as a sentence that doesn't need to be there). And I'm sure if a lot of things had not fallen into place correctly then the album wouldn't have been created, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should list them all in the article. Jacedc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, cool. I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's another one: On one of the many late nights Smith spent at the studio, he walked in on ski-masked burglars who had broken into the building; they were alarmed by his presence and immediately ran away. Is this really relevant? If nothing really happened as a result of the robbery, or if the production of the album didn't really suffer, then I'm not entirely sure this should be there. Then again, as with my last comment, I'm no expert on this so maybe I'm wrong, just my two cents. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I removed it. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Most of xx was recorded from late December to late January before McDonald and Smith began an exhaustive mixing process, which lasted two weeks and was done with Logic 8. I would just shorten this to "Most of xx was recorded from late December to late January before McDonald and Smith began mixing, which lasted two weeks." No need to mention it was "an exhaustive mixing process", and as with my first comment, no real need to mention it was done with Logic 8. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It being "exhaustive" ties into "how long" the production process took IMO, but I removed "done with Logic 8"; no need to mention it twice. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I read through the accompanying source and (as far as I could tell) it didn't say anything about it being "exhaustive", so couldn't that fall under original research? Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I gathered it was thorough and comprehensive from details in the article like "...solidly going through..." and "People have said to me before, 'Oh, it must've been a really easy thing to mix, right?' but actually there was a lot of attention to the details to make everything feel right, and it took a long time." Dan56 (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay, as long as it's not OR. As it stands is fine, then. Jacedc (talk) 13:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For each song, they mixed one or two tracks of each instrument and used Waves Audio components to equalize the recordings. Similarly, I'm not really sure this is entirely relevant, but again, could be wrong. Just something to think about. Jacedc (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • More of a question than a comment, but I noticed that the dates are formatted like DD MO Year, which I suppose is how it's supposed to be considering they're an English band, but then the article goes on to read "realize", instead of "realise". My question is if this article is supposed to be written in British English? It would appear to be so. If so or if not, I believe it should be consistent either way. Jacedc (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
It is written in British English, apart from that word lol. Autotype/correction automatically changed it from "s" to "z" when I wrote it. Thanks for pointing it out. Revised. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • AllMusic's Heather Phares called the instrumentation impeccable and was impressed by how poised and refined such a young group sounds. This is a POV sentence so I think it would be better off as a quoted sentence. Perhaps quote exactly what Phares said instead of parsing it as raw text? Jacedc (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I added the word "said", as in "...impeccable and said she was impressed by...", so everything after "said" is being attributed to her. Dan56 (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, that works just as well! :) Jacedc (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support All issues that I raised have been addressed and I now believe this article would make a suitable FA. Good job! Jacedc (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Other comments[edit]

  • Support The prose quality is excellent and it covers all of the necessary subjects with fine sourcing. I think this article has been thoroughly reviewed at this point and meets all the requirements. Shii (tock) 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support As per above. The prose quality is top-notch and the referencing is on-point. Yeah, seems good to me :) Soulbust (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the two users above me. Great choice for an FA. Aria1561 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Prose reads well. Sources I can view check out. Right size of article too. It gets my support. Great work to all involved! Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A Quiet Night In[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"A Quiet Night In", the second episode of dark comedy anthology series Inside No. 9, was half an hour of (almost) dialogue-free comedy. The Times TV critic David Chater called it "the funniest, cleverest, most imaginative and original television I have seen for as long as I can remember - one of those fabulous programmes where time stands still and the world around you disappears", but someone subsequently wrote in to the publication to say they "were horrified" with the episode. That might give you an idea of what to expect. I've plundered a variety of sources, rewatched the episode several times and massaged the prose repeatedly. I would like to thank Grapple X (talk · contribs) for a GA review and Midnightblueowl (talk · contribs) for a peer review. I look forward to your comments. This may be a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Prose comments

  • Joyce Veheary and Kayvan Novak also star. - I'd put this somewhere else, as it's in between two sentences related to the plot
  • I generally prefer "Plot" being before "Production", but I guess the MOS doesn't require it.
    • I prefer it my way around as it offers a rough chronology- it was made, it was broadcast, there was a response. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film says "There is no defined order of the sections." I do have sympathy for your way around- I think a certain degree of author's choice is appropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep, agree (hence "I guess the MOS doesn't require it".) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • He looks to the fake painting, - Don't recall a fake painting being mentioned before this.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • "Ray cuts away the canvas and replaces it with kitchen roll." Does this need to be stressed a bit more? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
      • My mistake. If others miss this, it might be worth emphasis. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Critics generally responded positively to "A Quiet Night In". David Chater, writing for The Times, gave an extremely positive review, - positive/positive — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Media review

Thanks, Chris, for the review. It's appreciated. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Very nice article. A commendable job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, it's appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, however I have one small concern regarding the use of "darker elements" in the lede paragraph. I am sure that those of us raised as native Anglophones will understand this, but will others from other socio-cultural backgrounds necessarily understand it ? Could we use a less ambiguous term perhaps ? If people disagree with me on this, that is fine, but just thought that I'd raise the point as it was popping up in my mind. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Oh, and I would really recommend that the weblinks here are archived, as for instance I did for the Uncle David article. Otherwise there may be a situation in the future where those links have died, and thus text will have to be removed from the article itself, which might potentially threaten its GA/FA rating. I always think that it's better to stay on the safe side in a scenario such as this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
      • One more thing ! In the reception section, there is a caption stating "Gerald eats his soup Eddie and Ray attempt to enter the house"; this doesn't make much sense as it currently stands so a small revision is probably required. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Midnightblueowl, it's thoroughly appreciated. I've fixed the caption, and will hopefully get to your other comments tomorrow (or, if not, at the weekend- a lot going on). Josh Milburn (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I've switched "darker" to "more sinister". I think that perhaps loses some of the subtly of the original wording, but I recognise that "dark" is a little euphemistic. I've also archived the majority of URLs. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments from Ruby2010

This is a great article and I only really have small nitpicks. Please feel free to disagree with any of them!

  • "Written by Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton, it stars the writers as a pair of hapless burglars attempting to break into the large, modernist house of a couple, played by Denis Lawson and Oona Chaplin, to steal a painting." I feel like this could be rewritten to make it flow better. It seems a tad choppy how it is now (I think it's all the commas). Perhaps input an em dash? "...a couple—played by Denis Lawson and Oona Chaplin—to steal a painting".
    • I've added dashes, as suggested. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Did Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith write the episode "David and Maureen"? It's not clear.
    • I've clarified that they co-wrote and starred in both League of Gentlemen (they co-wrote with others, but "co-wrote" does not imply that they were the only writers) and Psychoville. This logically implies that they co-wrote "David and Maureen". Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2015, Shearsmith said that the pair had no intention to do any further silent episodes, as they would not want viewers to think they had run out of ideas". Is this sentence missing a word or did you mean to write it like that? (I could fix it myself but wanted to check first).
    • I've clarified this- good spot. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You include "Both writers agreed it was "great to perform" before establishing that they acted in the episode. Perhaps this belongs in the following paragraph?
    • Good point- I've rejigged the section slightly. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't sound like Chaplin's casting was "coincidental", since one of the writers said it was "almost an accident but maybe a little nod". "Coincidental" seems too strong a word to describe this but I'm not sure what else to use. Hmmm...
    • I've changed it to "her casting was not a deliberate homage", which I think is a little weaker than calling it "coincidental". Do you think this is better? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The footnote on the characters' names is awkwardly placed. I almost feel that it would be better to include at the end of production section (as prose, not a footnote). Ruby 2010/2013 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No third-party source thought the point significant enough to mention, so I don't really want it outside of the plot section or in the main body. I have moved it to a less intrusive place; hopefully this is a bit better? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I like that you at least moved the note to the end of the sentence, so it doesn't break up the text as much. Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments! I'll get to these soon. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
      Thanks again for the review- it's very much appreciated! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
    My quibbles have been mostly dealt with, so I'm happy to support this article for promotion. Well done! Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

SMS Königsberg (1905)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Another German commerce raider from World War I, though one less famous (and less successful) than Emden - this ship was eventually bottled up in the Rufiji River in German East Africa and sunk by British warships, though Königsberg‍ '​s war was not yet over, her crew (and her guns) having gone to join von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerrilla campaign. I'd like to run this article on the main page on 11 July 2015, to mark the centenary of the ship's sinking. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Königsberg_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Cut the link and updated the dead-tree source citation. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The German cruiser then radioed the German steamer Zieten from heading to the Suez Canal where she would have been confiscated. seems clunky. Perhaps "Looff radioed the German steamer Zieten to warn her against using the Suez Canal, where she would have been confiscated."?
    • Yeah, that is a little rough - I like your wording.
  • whose officers also, why "also"? Had another ship mistaken her for a British cruiser?
    • Don't know ;)
  • When a British cruiser is mentioned, patrolling along the coast, Pegasus is then identified when the German ship attacks her. Could she not be identified as Pegasus in the preceding para? It just jars a bit.
    • See what I've added - what I was trying to get at was that the Germans didn't know which ship it was
  • what type of ship was Weymouth? A cruiser, but perhaps it could be rendered as "The cruisers Chatham, Dartmouth and Weymouth"?
    • A good point.

more to follow. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • "Sopwiths"? Do we know what type?
    • Unfortunately not.
  • suggest Hyacinth intercepted Kronborg as she approached, and chased her to Manza Bay
    • A good idea.
  • through the Brandenburg Gate to celebrate them and their ship perhaps "through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to celebrate their service and that of their ship."?
    • Sounds good to me.
  • no alt text for images (not an ACR requirement).
  • reflinks and dab checks ok
  • That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • The line drawing says it's of the Stettin class, not the Königsberg class, and doesn't include this ship. Presumably the naming convention has changed since then, but perhaps this should be mentioned, in the text or caption?
    • They don't call it "Jane's Frightening Slips" for nothing ;) I've added a note to the effect that it's a mistake.
  • "At the same time, Königsberg was again used": surely "at about this time" or something like that?
    • How about just "At this time"?
  • "two trips escorting the Kaiser to Helgoland on 9–13 March and to Britain from 8 to 27 May": since this is over a period of two years it's not clear if this is in 1910 or 1911.
    • Good catch - clarified now.
  • Any reason why you translate Korvettenkapitän but not Fregattenkapitän?
    • Nope - probably just forgot. Fixed now.
  • "the ship would likely have to coal at Zanzibar on Sundays": why Sundays?
    • The source doesn't go into his reasoning, but I'd assume based on the days the ship was present and the distance from Zanzibar to the delta.
  • "Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck requested as many crew members from the ship as possible for his guerrilla campaign": since you give the English name for his rank, and since the most recently mentioned ship is British, it's not immediately obvious that this is a German officer requesting men from the Königsberg.
    • A good point - added the German name for his rank and that the campaign was directed against the British.
  • Is there a link that could be put in for von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerilla campaign? Even a redlink would be helpful if it's notable enough to warrant an article.
    • It's linked in the following paragraph, but I suppose I can shift it up.
  • "Instead, Königsberg was trapped in the river by two cruisers and several smaller vessels": this is much less specific than the earlier mentions of the Chatham, Dartmouth, and Weymouth; is it in fact these same ships?
    • Farwell doesn't specify which ships, but Dartmouth had already left to reinforce Cape of Good Hope Station, so it'd just be Chatham and Weymouth, plus the miscellaneous smaller vessels in the area.
      Interesting. This is one of those "logical deduction" things, I'd say, that in theory can be added without direct citations, if any reasonable editor would conclude the information is correct. It sounds like it's really pretty definite that it's Chatham and Weymouth; can we say so in the article? We could add a footnote mentioning Dartmouth's departure to explain the different list of ships. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest linking breech block.
    • A good idea.

Overall the article looks very sound; I expect to support once these minor issues are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mike! Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

George Pickingill[edit]

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an alleged "cunning man", or vocational folk magician, who lived in the Eastern English county of Essex during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. A curious figure, local folk tales grew up around him and his alleged magical powers, which included the ability to command both animals and imps to do his bidding. The article has been massively expanded by myself over the past year or so, and has successfully passed GAN and also received a peer review. Those editors with an interest in the eccentric and the odd might enjoy reading this one, as will those with a more specific interest in the history of magic, witchcraft, and esotericism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • If it's obvious from the caption who is pictured, you don't need to actually say "pictured"
  • File:George_Pickingill,_Cunning_Man.jpg: use {{non-free biog-pic}} instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Support (with a caveat). I had my say at PR, and, having just read through the article again, I can say with confidence that it is of a very high quality. Midnightblueowl should be commended. I have made some final tweaks, and there are a last few comments below.

  • "by threatening to set white mice on them, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune" As written, the "rodent" being described is the "them" (that is, the victim of the mouse attack). This needs to be reworked a little, but I'm not sure I can see any easy way to do it.
    • I've changed this to "threatening to set upon them white mice, a rodent which in local folklore were associated with misfortune". It is not necessarily ideal, so if any other editors had further suggestions, then they would be welcome. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Ward suggested that many of the stories regarding Pickingill's magical activities were adopted from those of a genuine Essex cunning man, James Murrell." Do you mean adapted or adopted, here?
    • Both fit in there actually, although I think that adapted probably works a little better, so I'll change it there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In this, his claims fitted within the historical framework of the witch-cult hypothesis as propagated in the works of Margaret Murray." Is it worth noting that the witch-cult hypothesis is discredited?

My one remaining concern is with the reliability of a particular source, but I am willing to defer if others do not share my concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I make any mistakes.

  • "local people were inventing claims to please Maple, many of which were based on older tales": suggest rephrasing to place "claims" next to "many of which".
    • I'm sorry, but I don't follow 100% here; are you suggesting that I get rid of "to please Maple" altogether, or just moving it to the end of the sentence ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      Sorry, that was a bit telegraphed. I meant that "to please Maple" interrupts the sense of "claims, many of which", so I was suggesting something like "local people, to please Maple, were inventing claims, many of which were based on older tales". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "By 1851, he is recorded as lodging in the household of David Clemens in Little Wakering, Essex, and described himself as a farm labourer by profession": "lodging" and "described" should be in the same tense; I'd also suggest "In 1851" instead of "By".
  • "according to the marriage rites of the Church of England" is a little long-winded; can we just say "at St. George's Church, an Anglican church in Gravesend, Kent"?
  • 'Described on the record as a "spinster" ': the marriage certificates always described the women as spinsters or widows; I would just say she was unmarried when they wed -- or perhaps don't mention it at all. The way you have it makes it sound to someone unfamiliar with these records as if it's significant they said she was a spinster.
  • "Mary Ann Pickingill": is this a typo for "Sarah Ann Pickingill"?
    • No, this is correct. It's a little strange but she seemed to use both names. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Just checking: is Rochdale the correct location for Taylor's trial? It's quite a way from Essex, where the crime took place. Should this be Rochford, which seems to be the local market town?
    • Quite right, it's Rochford. What a silly mistake I made !?! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Why "namely horses", when the rest of the sentence describes his control over game animals?
    • I think the meaning here (which is conveyed from the original source) is that he could exert full control over horses to do his bidding, but that he could also make game animals run out of a hedgerow, while not necessarily being able to control them any further than that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
      How about "particularly" rather than "namely" in that case? "Namely" implies that horses are all that the sentence refers to; "particularly" avoids that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The paragraph starting "According to Maple" has "the village of Canewdon" and "the agricultural village of Canewdon"; can we just say "Canewdon"?
  • Suggest putting quotes around "senial decay and cardiac failure", since it appears to be quoting the death certificate.
    • Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      Actually I meant that it should be quoted because "senial" wasn't modern spelling, so it needed to be apparent to the reader that that's how the source had it. Assuming that it was your typo, it's fine with or without quotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "his abandoned house gradually fell into dilapidation before": suggest either "fell into disrepair" or "became dilapidated".
  • A minor MoS issue: you have unspaced em dashes in the text, but in at least one quote I see spaced en dashes instead. I think you should be consistent.
  • "Pagan" is inconsistently capitalized.
    • The capitalised version applies to the contemporary religious movements, the lower-case version instead refers to pre-Christian belief systems. I've seen it applied in the works of various historians to differentiate between the two. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
      I thought it might be something like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Kelly believed that either Liddell or his Elders were thus "purposely creating a phony history in order to throw researchers off the trail" which would have revealed that Gardner had invented Wicca in its entirety in the early 1950s." I don't follow the second half; what would have revealed this? The trail? I think this needs to be rephrased.
    • I've gone with "Kelly believed that either Liddell or his Elders had purposely created a "phony history" in order to hide the fact that Gardner had invented Wicca in its entirety in the early 1950s." Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes, and reliable sources?
    • is only being used to cite the views of its author/co-author, Bill Liddell, whose beliefs certainly constitute a "significant minority view" (and as evidence for that I would point to the fact that Liddell's statements have been cited in the work of academics like Ronald Hutton, Owen Davies, and Ethan Doyle White). Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The citation to features an article authored by Julia Philips, a prominent Wiccan who has published books on esoteric history (we cite one of her books extensively over at the FA-rated article on Madeline Montalban, for instance). She might not be an academic, but she is surely reliable enough for use in this single citation ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • is a website that is used extensively in this article, and is invaluable to it at present. It has published the researches of William Wallworth, in which he extensively quotes from other primary and secondary sources. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      OK on the first two. For, I can see it's been very useful to the article, but can you provide any information about the editorial control exercised over the site? WP:NOTRELIABLE is fairly explicit about self-published websites, which I'm afraid is what this appears to be.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bill Denny (Australian politician)[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Bill Denny, a South Australian Labor politician and former Attorney-General who enlisted to fight in World War I at the age of 43. He served on the Western Front and was awarded the Military Cross for conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty. Denny became Attorney-General in two more Labor Governments after the war, and served in the South Australian Parliament from 1900 to 1905 and 1906 to 1933. It has been brought through GA and Milhist A-Class since it was created on 17 January 2015. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

[Support. All my comments below have been addressed. I think the article is now sufficiently comprehensive in that it outlines some of Denny's major policy initiatives. The only hesitation on my part is whether the prose amounts to "engaging". At times the article is a fairly bare chronology. But ultimately I don't think the prose is any less engaging than in a number of FAs I've recently seen promoted. And hopefully it will benefit from one or two other commenters dropping by and picking up prose matters to be further improved. So I'm happy to support. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)]

My most substantive point is that the article is short on detail about what Denny actually did as a Government Minister: the policies he pursued; his successes; his failures. This is especially the case for his second and third stints as a Minister, about which the reader learns very little at all. Other comments:

  • The lead suggests that the whole of his parliamentary career was as a ULP/ALP member, which doesn't seem to be correct. He seems to have also had stints as an independent and PLP member.
  • "He was again Attorney-General in the Labor governments led by John Gunn (1924–26) and Lionel Hill (1930–33)" - Missing Robert Richards.
  • There seems to be conflict between the ADB and the 1919 Sunday Times article about when he started to work for the newspaper. The former says 1896; the latter says 1893. Any reason why the former is preferred?
  • "When a by-election was held for West Adelaide on 17 March 1900..." - I think this sentence tries to do too much. Split?
  • "In the 1902 state election the electoral district of West Adelaide was abolished" - do you abolish a seat in an election?
  • "In 1903, he began studying law at the University of Adelaide, and was defeated at the 1905 state election, gaining only 9.9 per cent of the votes" - the and implies a relationship between the two clauses of the sentence, but there is none. Perhaps take the law studies and the 1908 admission out of where they are and put them as a separate sentence, admittedly out of chronological order, at the end of the paragraph? As it is, it gets in the way of the political stuff.
  • Is there any story behind why he started as a ULP candidate, then became an independent, and then rejoined the ULP?
    • Not that I'm aware of, but I've included a mention of where Howell observes he "abandoned" his former liberalism. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Australian Government" - as an Oz lawyer, I prefer "Commonwealth Government" but happy if you ignore this.
  • "These included the Advances for Homes Act 1910, and in his speeches he highlighted that many workers were faced with high rents and poor conditions. It allowed for 80 per cent of the value of a property to be advanced to a worker at 4.5 per cent interest over 36.5 years" - These two sentences seem out of order. Shouldn't we understand what the Act did before learning about what Denny said in his speeches?
  • "long, spindly legs" - who said this? There are two footnotes so the reader really has no idea.
  • I think we need a geographical location for the wounding in the body of the article, not just the lead. In the body, Egypt is the last location mentioned, which confuses the reader because, of course, it happened in France.
  • "He was subsequently invested with the Military Cross" - this is a long sentence and starts in the passive voice, so is quite difficult to digest.
  • "with a similar proportion of the vote" - "similar proportions"?
  • "During this period he carried several significant legislative changes." - this seems to be a very significant period in Denny's career; I think we need to know what these legislative changes were. It makes the next para, which talks about opening war memorials, seem trivial.
  • "address was punctuated with applause" - it would be good to know who said this without needing to follow the footnote. Although... is this sentence needed at all? It is just about one memorial.
    • I think it goes to how he was a rare beast, being a returned Labor pollie. The quote is from Inglis et al, but I don't see the need to attribute inline. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there any explanation for his unusually strong performance at the 1930 election?
  • "Appointed Attorney-General for the third time in the Labor government of Lionel Hill" - this doesn't seem right; the reader initially thinks it was his third stint as A-G in the Hill government.
  • "Lang Labor Party" - I'd suggest just "Lang Labor" as there was no such thing as the "Lang Labor Party".
  • Any explanation for why he lost his seat in 1933, after such a long run of electoral success? Again, this seems to be one of those significant career moments that would warrant more detail.
  • "Denny wrote a further autobiographical book, A Digger at Home and Abroad which was published in 1941" - missing the close to a set of parenthetical commas? [I'd change it myself but I wasn't completely sure]
  • "Mr. Ephriam "Brownie" Tripp" - any reason why he gets a "Mr."?
  • Nice ending to the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review and comments. This is my first FAC on a politician, I'm mainly a Milhist guy, so bear with me. I'll start working though your comments and raise any queries as I go. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Two quibbles with the above: there absolutely was a (formal) Lang Labor Party in South Australia, and they swept out all the incumbents in Denny's three-member seat in 1933, which is why that sentence says as much as can be said. I felt that the reason Denny lost in 1933 was implied there - the PLP was obliterated and nearly all its members were defeated - but that's one point that could probably be fixed by making it explicit in one sentence. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that. Lang Labor doesn't mention the SA version of the party, which makes it a slightly problematic wikilink. Maybe we could add something brief to that article? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
          • There should at least be some mention in Lang Labor (though it's not something I feel like I can slip in easily: it's a narrative article entirely structured around Lang's shenanigans in NSW), but I should really getting around to writing Lang Labor Party (South Australia): it's a significant part of telling the story of 1930s-era South Australian politics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Perhaps I should redlink it for now? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
              • That sounds fine to me. Redirecting that title to Lang Labor would be the other option but that article says nothing about the SA party. Incidentally, there is a 1969 article "Lang Labor in South Australia" by Don Hopgood in the journal "Labour History" (vol 17), which seems to be available through JSTOR. Not relevant to the FAC but thought it worth noting somewhere as it would seem to be useful for filling in the red link. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
                • If it needs to be bluelinked for this to pass (I am an old biddie in Wikipedia terms and can't keep up with changing criteria) I'll see what I can do about digging that JSTOR article up and making it happen in the next couple days. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
                • No, it doesn't need to be blue-linked to pass. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've had FAs promoted with red links in the past. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Tiny quibbles re the lede and the most recent edit:

  • Why the scare quotes around Parliamentary Labor Party?
    • My understanding was that it wasn't really a party, per se, with grassroots members, more a grouping of members of Parliament. But if that is incorrect, happy to remove them from the lead and body.
      • They were a bloc of members of parliament, and considering they contained what had previously the entire Cabinet had to have significant grassroots support in e.g. campaigning in 1933. I think they're definitely a party (they certainly contested the 1933 election as one). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead doesn't state when he joined the Labor Party, and essentially suggests that it could have been anytime between 1900 and 1917 (this is important because he was only briefly an Ind. Liberal)
    • Actually, he was a member of the ULP when he ran unsuccessfully in 1899, then he ran as an independent liberal in 1900 and again in 1902 and 1905. I wouldn't say he was "briefly" an independent liberal, he won two elections and lost another as an independent liberal. Assuming that they were strict about party members not running against other party members, he must have resigned from the ULP after the 1899 election and before the 1900 by-election. He must have rejoined the ULP after the 1905 election and before the 1906 election, but I haven't found a source for the actual date.
      • Is there a way this could be explained better in the lede? I feel it's a little vague prior to 1917, and his earliest affiliations I don't think are in the infobox? The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Have tried to make it clearer. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Looks good. Only further suggestion I'd have is clarifying the infobox re: his parties (it doesn't mention years or his PLP stint). The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Denny's expulsion had very little to do with him personally; he was expelled because the entire ministry was expelled for supporting the Premiers' Plan, and I think the sentence about him being ejected from the ALP could better reflect that The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting a little as I go; please revert as needed. Overall this is in fine shape.

  • "he was elected as an ULP candidate": surely "a ULP"?
  • You only use the abbreviation ALP once; I think you should drop it and use the expanded form.
  • The abbreviation ULP is not explained in the lead, but it is given in the first paragraph of early life. If it's worth explaining I think it should be done on first use. I'm not crazy about doing that sort of thing in the lead, so you might rephrase to avoid needing it there.
  • "During his time as Attorney-General, Denny legislated important reforms": did Denny write or otherwise originate the bills referred to? It seems odd to say "he legislated" when passing a bill is an act of a legislative body, not of one person.
  • Would it be possible to get a map showing South Australia and the Northern Territory within Australia, and ideally showing Adelaide? A map showing one or more of the electoral districts he ran for would be a nice touch too.
  • "During this period he carried several significant legislative changes": should this be "carried out"?
  • "he was one of few Labor politicians invited to unveil memorials": I think "one of the few" would read more naturally.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review, Mike. I believe I have addressed all your points except the map one. Unfortunately, due to the size of the infobox, there is very limited space for any more images, and adding such a map would definitely be problematic in the relevant section due to text sandwiching. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    Support. Fair enough on the map; everything else looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this one seems to be travelling ok with three supports, an image check and no opposes. Given it is an older nom, any chance I can be granted leave to nominate a fresh one while this one goes through? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead -- at the same time, pls seek a source review for formatting/reliability for this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Copy. Will do. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: would you mind having a look at the sources for this one? It would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Dead link
  • Brooks et al: typically we don't include titles in author names
  • Newspapers: I realize this is the formatting that NLA provides, but it's problematic.
  • Some of the wikilinks don't go to the right places - you don't mean observer and chronicle, you mean the publications by those titles.
  • Should be consistent in whether the initial The is included in publication titles, and whether it is considered when alphabetizing.
  • The first parenthetical - (Adelaide, SA : 1895 - 1954) - should be excluded
  • The second parenthetical is inconsistent in how locations are presented
  • The publication is not the author - where there is no named author, suggest excluding author parameter and sorting by either publication title or article title
  • Some entries are missing page numbers
  • AWM: you're crediting AWM as the author, work, and publisher - pick one. Same with City of Mitcham
  • SA Parliament or Parliament of South Australia? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990[edit]

Nominator(s): Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about an Earth-grazing meteoroid that flew over Czechoslovakia and Poland on 13 October 1990 and left into space again. It was the first event of this type, when the meteor was captured from two sites, which enabled geometrical calculations of its orbit. Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

Really just a few comments, I'm afraid. I'm still recovering from my broken ankle and don't have the time to conduct a thorough review.

  • Lead image caption:
    • "the light track across the picture going from the south to the north" could perhaps be improved since the track is not very visible and there is no indication of north, south or direction travelled on the image. Since south-to-north is clear in the body of the article, perhaps something like "the faint near-vertical track just to the right of the pole star" would be a better indication.
  • Similar events
    • What does "eccentric trajectories" mean in this context? Needs clarification I think. Perhaps "...a method for computing the grazing trajectories of such bodies, ..." may be clearer.
  • References
    • It looks as if Spurný 1994 requires payment for the full contents. Probably need to add the |subscription=yes parameter to this and any similar citations.

--Mirokado (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mirokado: Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I did not know about the the subscription parameter before. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Striking. --Mirokado (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:EN131090_with_text.png: what is the source of the data used for this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    For the orbits of the meteoroid before and after, the data are simply those in the table in same section and the data for the orbits of the planets are those in the infoboxes on their articles or any other place where they can be found. Is it really necessary to mention this in the caption? --JorisvS (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Not in the caption, but it should be added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Done. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Right, interesting topic. Reading now....

  • .. left into space again - this sounds odd - maybe "returned to space again"?
  • I'd put its mass in the lead, as otherwise I have no idea what "small" is at this point.
  • If possible, avoid isolated single-sentence paragraphs.
  • The encounter was observed both visually and photographically. - I think I'd remove this sentence and let following sentences speak for themselves.
  • It became visible at a height of 103.7 km south of Zlín, Czechoslovakia, approaching Earth's surface to only 98.67 km northeast of Wrocław, Poland and disappeared from the sight of the cameras at the height of 100.4 km north of Poznań, Poland, although it was probably still visible until the height of 110 km above the south Baltic Sea. - this sentence is really long - I'd split it.
Ok, I've done it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Any more elaboration on fusion crust would be helpful.

Looks ok (I think), though is pretty short. Will think about what else it might need. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: I have copyedited it using your comments and have also found a few things myself that I've changed.[11] I'm currently not sure how to split up that sentence without breaking the flow of the content, do you have any suggestions? As for "fusion crust", would linking it (albeit to a glossary)[12] help? --JorisvS (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Linking it to the glossary is better than nothing. Doesn't need much really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose as I can't see any other improvements. FAs needn't be long if the topic matter is well-defined. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits or to disagree with any of my following comments:
  • the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions: was it the first captured from two different positions, or the first captured, and that happened to be from two different positions?
  • Both were equipped with all-sky fisheye objectives.: where's the citation for this?
  • who concluded that the body was practically not decelerated along the track: what does "practivally no decelerated" mean?
  • observed on 29 March 2006 above Japan: is this worth a redlink?
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I agree with your copyedits and all your comments. I've redlinked the meteoroid above Japan and cited the piece about the all-sky fisheye objective (it was simply in the same reference as the sentence before it). The 1972 Great Daylight Fireball was also recorded on camera, so it's the former. How do you suggest we rephrase it? As for the deceleration, the source lists all 0 m/s2, except for one data point at the meteoroid's perigee, where it lists 1 m/s2. I find it hard to believe that it would be actually zero all that time and so suddenly jump to 1 and back again, so it must have something to do with the numerical accuracy of the calculation (but there is no comment on this in the source). So, "practically not decelerated" would mean "no deceleration to within the accuracy of the calculation". --JorisvS (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
How about something like "detected no deceleration"? For the two cameras bit, I can't think of an elegant way to handle it at the moment—ideally, it should be reworded, but I don't think it's a parituclarly important ambiguity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It is about a computer simulation, so I don't know how appropriate 'detected' really would be. What about using basically what I already said above, i.e. "who found no deceleration along the meteoroid's track to within the accuracy of the calculation, except for a very short time near perigee, when it was approximately 1 m/s2."? --JorisvS (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
As for that bit of ambiguity, what about just removing "by cameras", because "recorded" already more or less implies as much, so "first recorded by cameras from two distant positions"? --JorisvS (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the version without "by cameras" is good. Another possibility might be "...first recorded by cameras that were located at two distant positions" (as opposite to "...first recorded by cameras, which were located at two distant positions"), but it is longer. Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The ambiguity doesn't come from the cameras, it's about what was first: "being recorded" or "being recorded from two locations". The wording could be parsed as the former. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that "first recorded from two distant positions" has no ambiguity. I think it cannot be understood as "first recorded", but I am not a native speaker. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to withhold support over it, but it is indeed ambiguous as I've explained, which is why I had to ask for an explanation—because it wasn't clear to me which reading was correct. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that technically, "first recorded from two distant positions" can only mean the being the first from two different locations, whereas being the first recorded and incidentally also from two different locations would best have to be rephrased someway, but at least should have an additional comma, "first recorded, from two distant positions". However, because such commas are not sufficiently consistently used, I understand why it got you wondering (and, by extension, other readers). It currently reads "[it] was the second one scientifically observed, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions"; couldn't we, because the 1972 GDF was also recorded, rephrase this to "[it] was the second one recorded, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first one from two distant positions"? It would eliminate all potential ambiguity/confusion. Or is something more meant by "scientifically observed"? --JorisvS (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that wording would be fine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed it, though I still would like to hear @Jan.Kamenicek:'s input. --JorisvS (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not think it is good to replace "second scientifically observed" for "second recorded", because there are some records about Earth-grazing meteoroids preceding the 1972 and 1990 events, such as the 1860 Great Meteor. That is probably why the sources such as Borovička & Ceplecha talk about "scientifically observed" events. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I would rather think it the other way around, then. In the 19th century there were no cameras, so an event like this back then could not have been recorded, at least in its intended meaning, i.e. #2 and the closely related meanings. However, there were already astronomers who could make scientific observations. I'm open to finding a more precise synonym. --JorisvS (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I cannot find a synonym that would express the same as "scientifically observed", which is in my opinion most precise, but I feel that the word "recorded" (whose first meaning is "To make a record of information") brings more disambiguity than there was before, if it is is used also for the first part of the sentence. Therefore I suggest to keep the original version "this was the second one scientifically observed, ..., and the first recorded by cameras from two distant positions". The words "by cameras" can be omitted (though not necessarily) because here it is clear that meaning number two is used ("To make an audio or video recording of"), because meaning number one would not make sense (it cannot be second scientifically observed and first with recorded information at the same time). I agree with the opinion of JorisvS that the meaning "first recorded and incidentally also from two different locations" cannot be assumed from the original wording. Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You can assert it all you want—I did, in fact, read it both ways. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Curly Turkey: I take your point seriously. I understand that you saw the ambiguity in the original version but I believe that can be solved by omitting the words "by cameras", i. e. "this was the second one scientifically observed, ..., and the first recorded from two distant positions". I really cannot find a better wording, but I am not a native speaker. I am open to other suggestions, but the current wording is really bad because it brings more ambiguity than there was before. Therefore I suggest to put it back until better solution is found (if there is any, because I am afraid that every attempt to avoid all possible ambiguities would result in very complicated sentences). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Omitting "by cameras" brings the words "recorded" and "from to distant positions" close to each other and then they seem more to belong together inseparably. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Technically it can only be read one way, but many readers may not read it quite that technically, which is why I prefer to address it anyway. As far as I can tell, both the 1972 and 1990 meteoroids have been recorded on camera and the only significant difference in this respect is that the 1990 meteoroid has been recorded on cameras from two quite distinct positions. Now, "scientifically observed" is less precise than "recorded", but even "recorded" is ambiguous without a qualifier. What about using "recorded on camera" instead? --JorisvS (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, I understand. And what about writing both, i. e. "...the second one scientifically observed and recorded on camera (after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball) and the first one recorded from two distant positions". I think it is quite important to point out that it was observed by scientific equipment, unlike many other notable meteors that were only incidentaly recorded e. g. on a tourist camera and then these amateur pictures were given to scientists (such as the Morávka meteorite, though it was not an Earth-grazer). Here the wording "first one recorded from 2 positions" should not be ambiguous thanks to the previous part of the sentence. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, in that case we could rather specify the kind of camera being meant, instead of writing the vague phrase "scientifically observed". --JorisvS (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I can add the type of objective that all the cameras of the European Fireball Network use, but this can probably come later in the text. I am not sure how this fact could be used instead of pointing out that the 1972 and 1990 Earth-grazers were the only two that received direct attention of scientists until that time. But if you still do not agree with writing that, I will not insist on it anymore. It is not so important to spend so much time discussing it. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't mean type of camera like that. Just as in "camera used for professional astronomy" or something as opposed to one used by the general populace. It would make it something like "this was the second one recorded by astronomical cameras, after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball, and the first one from two distant positions". --JorisvS (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Now I see... The 1972 fireball was not observed by a typical camera, it was done using infrared radiometer tracking onboard a satellite. So maybe we could formulate it like this: "...the second one recorded using scientific astronomical instruments (after the 1972 Great Daylight Fireball) and the first one from two distant positions,...". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Didn't know that! Thank you for finding that! Yes, that works. --JorisvS (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support—my comments were all pretty hairsplitting, and they've all been dealt with. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I've read through twice and made a couple of very minor copyedits. Just one minor issue that doesn't affect my support.

  • "It took 78 seconds": I think this means that Kristensen was able to detect the meteor for 78 seconds. If so I'd suggested "It lasted 78 seconds".

A concise and well-written article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

2003 Sri Lanka cyclone[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a previous FAC, where an editor did a useful copyedit (as well as provide some comments that I addressed). This is also an article for a basin that only has two other featured articles, so it would be useful as far as diversity goes to have another FA there, especially in such a deadly basin. Hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Mkativerata comments[edit]

The "Aftermath" section bothers me a bit in the way in which it pieces together news sources rather than from sources that are reliable after-the-fact overviews. This could be causing accuracy problems. The article says: "Collectively, the governments of Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia pledged or donated $1.46 million to Sri Lanka." You've arrived at that figure by adding up four different figures in this source. Is the figure in US dollars? And surely it wasn't done collectively; the article makes it quite clear the four governments operated separately. Later, we are told that "Both Canada and Australia sent about $100,000 to the local Red Cross in their respective currencies". The Australian aspect of the sentence is sourced to here. Are we sure this is not the same $100,000 (AUS) as the $65,000 (US?) mentioned earlier? If so, why the repetition? The press release says that the $100,000 was "immediate flood relief" so I suspect it is the same money. But I don't know. The problem is piecing sources together; we need an overview source. Then, in the following phrase, "and the latter country [Australia] worked to rebuild the damaged schools". That's an understatement. The country didn't "work"; according to the source, it gave A$400,000. Without mentioning that figure, the earlier figures of $100,000/$65,000 look stingy. the source also says the money was for "rebuilding of basic social services, including schools", so it was not at all limited to schools. Anyway, this is all to illustrate a broader point: that I'm not sure the use of sources is appropriate and it is liable to lead to inaccuracies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Eek. Regarding the adding them together, is "cumulatively" better? Regarding the dual usages of Australia, I apologize, I mistakenly included them twice, thanks. I found a better source that had all of the donations in the end, so I used that instead. Good call forcing me to get that :) I clarified that Australia sent money to UNICEF to service. Hopefully you think the aftermath is in better shape now. I don't believe there are any more inaccuracies in the aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the sporadic way in which I'm making mycomments. The overall view to which I'm inclined at the moment is as follows: that the section on the cyclone is quite strong, but the sections on its impacts are less so. As the following comments suggest, which concern only the section on the flooding in Sri Lanka, I think there are problems with accurate representation of sources as well as some prose glitches. Prose we can fix in a week or so across the article; the sourcing I'm less confident about, especially given that I'm just sampling sections at this stage:

The problem with the sourcing is that the storm wasn't named. It is very easy to look up information on Hurricane Sandy and find exactly what you're looking for. Not only was the storm not named, it was also a flood event in a non-western country, which makes sourcing even more difficult. I did the best I could to include as much as possible on the storm, but since the primary effects were flooding (which can theoretically happen at any time worldwide with enough rainfall, especially in the tropics), there isn't necessarily a definitive endpoint for the aftermath. It's not an article on Flooding in Sri Lanka, it's about one particular storm. Given that ReliefWeb collected all of these stories related to this event, I rely heavily on them. Hope that makes a little more sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "After the floods largely subsided, the World Socialist Web Site criticized the Sri Lankan government for not having better disaster management in place, as well as noting that deforestation and gem mining contributed to the landslides." - what makes the World Socialist Web Site a source worthy of inclusion in this article? I would have thought the views of the Red Cross, which are already there, are reliable and sufficient.
  • Per World Socialist Web Site, it is "the most widely accessed international socialist news site in the world", and they came third in the nearest elections to the elections. I wanted to include view points outside of the Red Cross and news organizations, and I happened to come across the source. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting anticipated the flood event three days in advance, and the first flood warnings were issued on May 17." This sentence, with its second clause in the passive voice, implies that the NCMRWF issued the flood warnings, which is surely not true. It might also help to note in the sentence that the NCMRWF is an Indian organisation; if the reader doesn't follow the wikilink they will assume it is Sri Lankan.
  • "Schools and public buildings were used as emergency shelters, and about 8,000 people evacuated on May 18." - the and just doesn't work here.
  • I rejiggered the sentence to - About 8,000 people evacuated on May 18, utilizing schools and public buildings as emergency shelters.Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The source for the death figures in Ratnapura is contemporaneous and very much subject-to-change ("The death toll so far is 256," said Karu Jayasuriya, head the government's disaster management team). I don't think we can rely on it to give solid and unqualified figures ("125 people died in Ratnapura.")
  • That source also had the final death toll, so the 125 in Ratnapura sounds legit. I'll add "at least" before "125" if you want, though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Come to think of it, I changed it to "at least" to be on the safe side. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "representing an estimated 20–30% loss for the year." - The source says that the loss is in low-grown tea crops. Dilmah tells us that low-grown tea is only one of Sri Lanka's three types of tea crop. So I don't think we can say there was a 20-30% loss of tea crop generally.
  • "Farmers in the region also lost some of their rice paddies to the high waters, although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged" - what is "the region"? The 3% figure is fairly meaningless without knowing.
  • The source said it referred to the areas affected by the floods. I said "farmers in the affected region" - that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Overall, the floods destroyed 24,750 homes and damaged 32,426 others" - see above for comment on using a contemporaneous and contingent source ([13])
  • Good call. The overall isn't perhaps the best word, and the source was only shortly after the floods ended. We know that the floods destroyed at least that many buildings, and the source is accurate, so I put "at least" in. Sadly, unlike the United States, Sri Lanka doesn't have the best disaster infrastructure (as the aftermath stated), so I couldn't find anything substantial after the fact for exactly how many houses were damaged/destroyed. I think the wording change works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The World Meteorological Organization later described the flooding as proof of an increase in more violent weather events" - the source says symptom, not proof (or similar). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think you misread. The source said The World Meteorological Organization cited it as evidence for the increase of anomalous climatic extremes in recent years. I think proof and evidence are fairly synonymous. If you still disagree, I'll happily change it. Thanks again for the thorough review. I welcome all comments, and it means a lot to me that someone was willing to read what I said and critique it :) Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – looks great from writing and presentation standpoints (I've done some minor copyediting, during both this and the previous FAC). My only concern is whether the bit about the storm potentially/maybe/possibly having added in some small way to a heat wave really contributes anything of value. The source is extremely vague, and the attempts to paraphrase it are even more weaselly. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for the copyediting! As for the heat wave, I agree it might not be the most typical thing to include in an article, but there is very little related to the storm outside of Sri Lanka. I think it's interesting how a storm can affect regions. The IMD specifically mentioned the heat wave as one of the effects, so hopefully the new wording works better, attributing the source to them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. There's a minor point about currency notation that I'll ask about at WT:FAC, but I'm not going to withhold a support over that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • The infobox gives a three minute sustained wind speed that's higher than the one minute speed; surely that's an error?
  • Weirdly, it's not. The 3-minute winds are the official winds in the basin, while 1-minute winds are unofficial and provided by the JTWC. I've never really thought about how it's formatted, whether the readers might not understand what it means. The article explains who the estimates are from, but perhaps the infobox should as well. I made a post on the talk page for the project, asking others whether we should implement this change. Thanks especially for this feedback here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, that's weird. Struck, since it's correct, but I think a footnote might be handy, if a better way to present the data can't be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "the southwesterly fetch": I'm not familiar with this usage of "fetch"; could we get a link or note, or even a parenthetical explanation?
  • I didn't have that wording there, I changed it back to "flow", which I think most people would understand. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the article would benefit from a map of Sri Lanka showing some of the locations mentioned in the article. I don't think I'd oppose for the lack of this, but I think it would be very helpful to the reader.
  • Love that idea! I get to add an image, and it's useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Along the Gin River, flood waters inundated the surrounding terrain up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, which covered roadways and complicated evacuations": it's not clear what "which" refers to -- the flood waters, or the inundation -- so how about "Along the Gin River, flood waters inundated the surrounding terrain up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, covered roadways, and complicated evacuations".
  • "After previously wet conditions saturated soils": suggest "Since the previously wet conditions had saturated soils".
  • Thanks, I was never a fan of the previous wording there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Many roads were damaged, including that which links Ratnapura to Colombo": suggest "Many roads were damaged, including the one [or "the road"] which links Ratnapura to Colombo". I think you could re-use "road" here; it's a low-visibility word and the repetition would not be jarring.
  • I used your wording, but used "that" instead of "which". I think that's the correct usage here. My preference is avoiding using it twice, if that's ok. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    Looks good to me. Re that vs. which, our article suggests both are correct. From my own observation it seems to be a personal preference, but I think either is fine in most non-restrictive clauses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged; this was not expected to affect the harvest": suggest "although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged, so no impact on the rice harvest was expected".
  • Another sentence that had caused slight troubles before, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Two different fatality figures are given: 254 and 260.
  • Ack, fixed. There was never a good, solid final damage total. That can sometimes happen for storms in Asia, and especially for the time period. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Across the island, floods related to the cyclone killed 260 people, becoming the worst floods in Sri Lanka in 56 years, when torrential rainfall struck the island in 1947": This wording doesn't quite work for me; and it's not clear if worst means most fatalities, which is what I would guess. How about "Across the island, floods related to the cyclone killed 260 people, the highest number of flood-related fatalities in Sri Lanka since torrential rainfall struck the island in 1947"?
  • After rechecking the source, I reorganized it, putting the 1947 bit earlier in the impact section. This gives it a better flow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "evidence of an increase in more violent weather events": the point in the sources is that this is thought to be due to global climate change, and I think this should be mentioned in the article if you're going to use this comment.
  • I just decided to remove that comment. I don't think it's worth the drama involved with climate change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest combining the first and third paragraphs of the "Elsewhere" section, to avoid a single-sentence paragraph.
  • I assume the "රු" symbol is the Sri Lankan rupee symbol. MOS:CURRENCY says to use the ISO 4217 standard when there is no widely known symbol; in this case that would be LKR, as far as I can tell.
  • A separate point is that I don't think you need to say "rupees" as well as using a symbol (though you might do something like that the first time the symbol is used, in order to give the reader the name of the currency); it would be like saying "$50 dollars". There are several examples of this and I don't think the article is consistent internally or with the MoS.
  • Now that I removed that sign, I think it should use "rupees". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    I think another tweak is needed. The first mention is "6 million rupees (LKR, $62,500 USD)"; if we're going to use "rupees" as the name for the currency then this looks good, giving the ISO abbreviation for definiteness, plus a link. But then I think subsequent mentions don't need to repeat LKR -- it can just be "15,000 rupees ($156 USD). Alternatively you could follow the MoS to the letter and make it "LKR 6 million (rupees, $62,500 USD)" and drop "rupees" thereafter. What you have now repeats both "LKR" and "rupees", which seems unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I changed it again. RS is another way of designating the currency, just as $ is for dollars. So now it's RS6 million (LKR, $62,500 USD), which is the same format for the rupees as it is for the dollars. Indicate what type of currency (rupees = RS, dollar = $) and the code. That is also in line with how we handle other currencies. Does that work? Your suggestion would make it be like USD 5 million, which just seems a bit odd IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    I haven't run into this before so I'm going to go ahead and support, and will post a note at WT:FAC asking for opinions from others who've used lesser-known currencies in their articles. I'm really not sure what the best format is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes the World Socialist Website's opinion worth mentioning? I accept that the site is a reliable source for the Fourth International's opinions, but is their opinion something a reader should be told about?
  • It provides criticism that I think is useful, in case readers were curious why it was as bad as it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    I see the value of that, but I'm not sure their opinion is particularly notable. A matter of opinion, though, so not a problem if you want to leave it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "while also commenting how": suggest either "while also pointing out how" or "while also commenting that".

Generally the article is in good shape; I expect to support once these points are taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the thorough review! Hope you like it more now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Yellow Evan[edit]

I support, a few quick things

  • "Early on May 11, the deep depression strengthened into a cyclonic storm – marked by maximum sustained winds of at least 65 km/h" mph? YE Pacific Hurricane
  • I added a notes section in general. See if it works now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In May 2003, the highest monthly rainfall in the country was 899 mm (35.4 in) at Gonapenigala Iranganie Estate." no need for "monthly" if you already mention the month (May). YE Pacific Hurricane
  • Alright. I changed the "in" to "Throughout" to make it clear that it's a monthly total without having to say the word. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • " of which 366.1 millimetres (14.41 in) fell over an 18‑hour period on May 17; at the same station, there was a peak hourly rainfall total of 99.8 mm (3.93 in).[9]" why are mm not abbreviated in one instance and are abbreviated elsewhere? YE Pacific Hurricane 00:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Happens to me all the time. No worries. :P YE Pacific Hurricane 02:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

  • I see some discussion of references above, is anyone prepared to sign off on the article re. source formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Camas pocket gopher[edit]

Nominator(s): Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about... the Camas pocket gopher, a rodent, the largest in its genus, endemic to a small valley in the US state of Oregon. The article went through a thorough GA review by FunkMonk, with copy-editing done by Miniapolis. An essential diagram was provided by Philg88. This is the second nomination to FA. The first was archived primarily due to lack of interest. Some helpful comments provided by Ucucha during that review have been addressed. In the interim, the taxonomy section has been expanded to include a cladogram (provided by User:IJReid), based on some recent phylogenetic studies. --Gaff (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Review by Mkativerata[edit]

Support as my comments below have been substantially addressed. The only qualification to my support is that I'm no expert in the subject area, so I can't fully gauge comprehensiveness and accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)]

  • This is not too far off, in my view, subject to the qualification that I'm no expert in the field. The sourcing looks good (I did spot checks), as does the comprehensiveness. Just small issues, which I think will be fixable:
  • "However, contemporary naturalist H. M. Wight disagreed." With which of the two parts of the preceding sentence did he disagree? And why did he disagree with it?
  • fixed: I added a reference to Wight's exact statement in 1918 and why he made it, based on observations that they ate mostly dandelion greens. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Who is John Richardson? Without a wikilink, we need to know.
  • fixed. This got dropped in copyediting. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Can a subgenus be established? (The answer may well be yes; just asking)
  • The source (Verts/Carraway Mammalian Species article, very first part of article in Context section) says it was "erected". Difference? Could also say "created"? I'm not particular. Thoughts? --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No biggie - mainly an existential question about whether subgenuses could be "established" as opposed to "discovered". --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You cite primary sources for saying that the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia were "echoing confusion". I'd only make this claim with a secondary source. Or is Allen, 1893 the source?
  • I'll double check Allen. This may just be my observation, that these specific texts "echoed" the confusion. I'm not sure Allen listed specifics. We can change wording.--Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • maybe fixed? So the Allen reference, page 56, second paragraph reads that Richardson's "determination was accepted by Coues and generally adopted by subsequent writers.". This is a confusing piece of history and Allen's account is the most lucid that I have found. It is a short paragraph and having a second set of eyes look at it would be helpful.--Gaff (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It just seems to me that linking the "confusion" to the 9th edition of the Britannica and the 1879 American Cyclopædia might be OR without a source that says that those two publications were victims of the confusion. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble with this. The sentence currently reads, "This confusion was echoed by subsequent authors;(Allen, 1893) the article on gophers in the 1879 edition of the American Cyclopædia has an illustration captioned "California Gopher (Thomomys bulbivorus)", and the ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (published during the late 19th century) mistakenly reports Thomomys bulbivorus as abundant along the central California coast." All 3 of these facts are sourced. Allen wrote that confusion was echoed (or rather the false determination was "adopted"). I agree that we cannot assume that he was referring to these two publications specifically, but both of them published wrong information. If we drop the semicolon in favor of periods, does that break up any implied connection enough? Something like, "Allen said some folks got it wrong.(cite) Publication A said wrong thing X.(cite) Publication B said wring thing Y.(cite)" --Gaff (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I reckon that's good enough. I think we can be afforded latitude to get away with that. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed This 21st century encyclopedia built by a bunch of hacks is getting it right... --Gaff (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 2008, multilocus phylogenetic analysis results of the genus were published." By whom? This seems to be a critical moment in the gopher's history. Suggest active voice, as well.
  • fixed I can add more or less detail (names of reseachers, name of journal, UC Berkely, Harvard, etc). Don't want to overdo it since article is long already. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Carraway & Kennedy, currently footnote 27, has no page-number cites.
  • fixed
  • Thanks for the review! I can certainly take care of all of these concerns. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Very minor suggestion - in "Description" you're plugging a lot of dense information into the first and third paragraphs. I'd suggest breaking it up a bit more -subheadings, even? - but that's just a personal inclination.
  • I'll keep tinkering with this. Agree, some minor tweaks will help it flow better. I did learn how to do this with the teeth, which is kind of cool. --Gaff (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed.
  • The bit of information about the gray-tailed vole squatting in the Camas' tunnel seems a bit out of place - wouldn't it be better in the final para of the section, which deals with other mammals that share range and tunnels?
  • fixed agree. Since that is another of "my" GA articles, maybe I was placing it too much in the foreground. Sadly, most of the images that I had found for that article got deleted. Long story...
  • "reportedly twittering" - any need for reportedly?
  • fixed
  • "Due to the economic impacts of crop damage and destruction of grazing surfaces". Do we need a sentence before this, establishing that the Camas damages crops and grazing surfaces before moving on to what the consequences of that are? As it is, the section on "Human interactions" just seems to jump right in about a sentence ahead of itself. More generally, the first four sentences of the section each involve the passive voice, which makes it quite difficult to follow.
  • I'll work on this. It would be good to quantify the cost of economic damage.
  • fixed I added some economic data as well. --Gaff (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What is an "overall degree of threat impact"? This seems like a bit of jargon from somewhere else that might need to be put into plain English.
  • fixed
  • The final para shifts from the IUCN to Natureserve and then back to the IUCN. In between there is a sentence about "area of species distribution" directed to an unknown purpose. Maybe think about a restructure? Two paras? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed

Image review

  • "Ten day old" -> "Ten-day-old" in caption; otherwise all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
fixed thank you for the review --Gaff (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
* FYI: Additional image added File:Camassia quamash 6374.JPG. Source is good and it is a valued image on commons. --Gaff (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cwmhiraeth[edit]

This looks to be a well-written, reasonably comprehensive article. A few points I noticed:

  • "... smooth-toothed" or "Western pocket" gophers." - Why capitalise the "Western"?
  • fixed Some call T. mazama the western pocket gopher. The source on this is unclear and colloquial names for the entire genus are not essential to this species' article. So...drop the "western". --Gaff (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The word "Camas" is capitalised throughout the article. Why? It is not capitalised in the Camassia article.
  • Interesting. It is capitalized most everywhere that I have seen it. Richardson's original text (which the article links to) calls it the Camas Rat. I would prefer to call it Thomomys bulbivorus. I'll do some more research. Camas the city is across the Columbia, in Washington, not in the gophers territory. --Gaff (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed The definitive text on this animal in my opinion is Verts & Carraway Land Mammals of Oregon. I own a (signed) copy. On pages 224 and 231 they refer to it as the camas pocket gopher. Other sources are variable and in my opinion less trusted. So, I have changed it in the article.--Gaff (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "During the mid-1800s James Audubon called to the species the "Camas rat" - The meaning of this sentence is unclear.
  • Fair enough. I need to do a bit to clarify and it will take a day or two. Its all there in The Viviparous Quadrupeds of North America. They basically reject Richardson's assessment and reassign what was then a synonymous animal. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed I rewrote this paragraph. --Gaff (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The species' genetic diversity is similar to that other pocket gophers occupying a larger geographic range and diversity of habitat." - Missing word?
  • fixed
  • "The fur is a flat, dull brown with a dark, lead-gray underside." - What precisely does this mean?
  • Fixed It means that the sentence needed help. --Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of "Description" starts off talking about a single individual but moves into the plural half way through.
  • fixed
  • In some places where there are two citations covering one fact, they are not arranged in numerical order.
  • fixed by a gnome. I wonder if we could have a bot made to do that for us? I'll ask around.--Gaff (talk) 07:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "... pull the pouches towards the opening" - It is not clear what opening is referred to here. Perhaps you could use "forward".
  • fixed
  • "Although the gopher's front claws are too weak to dig through the clay ... , its large incisors and strongly procumbent orientation are well-adapted for this purpose." - Some clarification needed here as to what is procumbent.
  • Agreed. It is used all over the place in the literature, but seems idiosynratic. Protuberant likely captures the same meaning and that is the word I had used. Procumbent may mean tht they stick out more directly forward. I'm going with protuberant for now. --Gaff (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • fixed.
  • "Androlaelaps fahrenholzi was reported is some studies" - This sentence needs attention.
  • fixed
  • That's all for now, while I consider whether the article is sufficiently comprehensive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for reviewing this & I'll get to work. The article will benefit from the attention of somebody with so much experience on rodent articles.--Gaff (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The alterations made to the article since I first studied it seem satisfactory and I now support this candidate on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Pete[edit]

Good points.
Capitalization: My understanding of relate MOS principles would say "western" should not be capitalized. "Camas" is the name of a city in the area the gopher inhabits; this suggests to me why it may have been capitalized to begin with. I'm not sure where the name originates, and whether or not it should be capitalized in this context.
I don't think the numerical order of references is something that should impede FA ratification. If this is important to you, I'd suggest you just fix it.
I suspect Gaff will be in a better position than I to address the remaining points. I have not worked on species-related FAs, and have yet to read this article closely, so I don't have a strong opinion about this; but in general, I am impressed with the quality, and am inclined to think it's ready for FA (with a little attention to some of these details). -Pete (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • All good Thanks for the support & the fixes. --Gaff (talk) 07:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by bluerasberry[edit]

photo donated by an expert

  • As I recall, Gaff wrote to a gopher expert and asked if they would donate images to use in this Wikipedia article. This person was so generous and gave one of the best pictures I have seen anywhere on Wikipedia.

I wonder if we should contact this expert and ask for the further favor that they might read this article and comment on the extent to which it meets their own quality expectations. Gaff, would you feel comfortable doing this? I support the request being made, if it seems right to ask. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • The photographer was more of a botanist working on the restoration site. We corresponded briefly and he was more interested in seeing what I came up with on this animal, so at this point it seems I am more the expert. And me a simple country doctor... ;) --Gaff (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

Right then, looking pretty good. Couple of minor flow issues.....

::They are born toothless, blind and hairless; growing rapidly, the young are weaned at about six weeks of age. - might work better as "Born toothless, blind and hairless, the young grow rapidly before being weaned at about six weeks of age." ::: fixed elegant.

Link genera in body of text (I meant think the word "genera" but no biggie)
Already there, first sentence Taxonomy section: "There are six genera of North American pocket gophers: Cratogeomys, Geomys, Orthogeomys, Pappogeomys, Thomomys, and Zygogeomys."

support Otherwise I think we're there on comprehensiveness and prose. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review and support! --Gaff (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Source review by Evad37[edit]

Notes: Spotchecks not done; footnote numbers as at this revision - Evad37 [talk] 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Please provide examples. A member of the GOC copyedited this and it has been reviewed by a number of other experienced editors. For the sake of expediency, please just fix it if you see some obscure violation. --Gaff (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Example: Use === Footnotes === instead of '''Footnotes:''' – as per the "Heading use (and misuse) examples" on that MOS page, and explicitly stated as "Do not make pseudo-headings using bold or semicolon markup" just above the examples. Fixed with this edit [14]. - Evad37 [talk] 03:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Footnotes consistency
    • The footnotes seem to be a mixture of short citations (linked to sources further down the page) and full citations (with external links and wikilinkes to other articles). I would suggest using just short citations (and adjusting FNs 7, 20, 21, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63 accordingly)
    • FN 1 uses title and year for the short cite, but other footnotes use author and year
    • FNs 48, 50 are both short cites without a defined author, but one uses the publisher while the other uses the title
  • Footnote formatting
    • FNs 2, 55: use endash (–) for page range
    • FNs 25, 43: use "pp." and an endash (–) for page range (unless these are single pages with a hyphen in the page number)
    • FNs 20, 21: The Wikisource logo is showing as part of the title (both as displayed and in the metadata). Wikisource is also being shown as the publisher; since it is just the content provider, it should be shown as "via Wikisource". I would suggest replacing {{cite wikisource}} with {{cite encyclopedia}}, setting |titlelink=s:Page on wikisource and |via=Wikisource (linked to Wikisource for the first use)
    • FN 58: page number(s)?
  • Source errors CS1 errors in sources
    • Carraway... (November 1993) – |accessdate= requires |url= – suggesting removing accessdate, identifies are generally stable and do not need an access date
    • Whitaker... (24 July 2007) – |accessdate= requires |url=
    • Wight, H. M. (October 1922) – |accessdate= requires |url=
  • Disputed: I do not see how it is a "source error" that the citation template was filled out to completion, including the date upon which an editor accessed the cited information. If you object to the template being filled out completely, take it up on the talk page for the template. This is not an acceptable reason to hold up FAC articles. --Gaff (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Changed "Source errors" above to "CS1 errors in sources" for clarity - Evad37 [talk] 04:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Fixed Carraway 1993 links to a valid correct URL via the JSTOR feature in the template. Do I need to have two URLs? Seems like a WP:BROKE issue. Not important. In any case, I took your advice and simply removed the accessdates. --Gaff (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Source formatting
    • Some titles are in title case, others are in sentence case – suggest using title case for all, per MOS:TITLE#Capitalization
Is that for book titles only or journal articles? Looking at references on another FA (Dodo) for comparison, I'm not sure... --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • When an author has two initials, some instances have space between them while others have no space between (example: "Verts, B. J" right above "Verts, B.J.")
Which is correct in MOS? I'll look around, but if you know, it will save some time, so we can work on other things. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • There are sources missing publisher details, and there are others missing the publisher location
    • Brandt, Johann Friedrich (1855) – language should be indicated
    • Elliot, Daniel Giraud (1905). – The |publisher= parameter contains "Series 6:1–761" after the publisher, breaking the CS1 style of separating fields with periods. Suggest separating these into |series= and |pages=
    • Nowak, Ronald M. (1999) – " / : Ronald M. Nowak." doesn't appear to be part of the title
Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Patton, J. L. (2005) – page range should use an endash (–)
It looks to me like it does already.  ?? --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Verts, B.J.; Carraway, Leslie N (1998) – missing a period after N
Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Whitaker, John O; Walters, Brianne L.; Castor, Linda K; Ritzi, Christopher M.; Wilson, Nixon (24 July 2007) – missing periods after O and K
Fixed. --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
    • And something I noticed in the external links section: the UniProt link shouldn't specify HTML as the format. Per documentation for CS1 templates (eg {{cite web}}), "HTML is implied and should not be specified."
That's a template issue that I don't know how to fix. *{{UniProt Taxonomy | name = ''Thomomys bulbivorus''| id = 113116| accessdate = March 2015}} --Gaff (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Source reliability issues:
    • FN57 (Willamette Valley Agriculture) appears to be an open wiki where anyone can create an account and add or change information. I would suggest following up the references provided there, and then citing those directly.
    • FN56 (Dollar times) – is this particularly reliable? I would have suggested using {{Inflation}} and {{Inflation-fn}}, except that template specifies that using CPI data to inflate non-CPI-type values "would constitute original research".

HMS Nairana (1917)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 & Ian Rose

This vessel was designed as a passenger ship but was commandeered in mid-construction by the Royal Navy for service in World War I as an aircraft carrier. It subsequently saw action during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. After that it reverted to its originally intended role and served for three decades as a Bass Strait ferry in Australia. Its civil career included its fair share of excitement, when it came closer to sinking than at any time during its military service. There was also an amusing incident with a Tasmanian devil, which evoked visions of the classic Looney Tunes character for us. This article recently passed a MilHist A-class review and should meet all of the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

This article has been improved further since its ACR, and I've made some small tweaks which I hope are OK. I also have the following comments and suggestions:

  • "Nairana was returned to her former owners in 1921 to be refitted in her original planned configuration" - this is a little bit awkward - "Nairana was returned to her former owners in 1921, and was refitted to her original planned configuration" or similar perhaps?
  • "Nairana was not requisitioned for military service in the Second World War" - given that this is in the lead, perhaps note that she was the only Bass Strait ferry not to be requisitioned
  • "The launch had been delayed nine months, after the British Government ordered that all construction workers be pulled from non-military vessels" - perhaps note why here? (eg, the outbreak of war)
  • "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed, and only limited internal modifications, notably the addition of three large workshops, could be made" - I suspect that this would work better as two sentences (eg, "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed. As a result, only limited internal modifications - notably the addition of three large workshops - could be made")
  • "They were powered" - what the "they" refers to here isn't clear as the previous sentence mentions both the turbines and propellers
  • "A Tasmanian devil being transported to Melbourne Zoo in a wooden crate placed in one of the ship's four horse stalls escaped by chewing a hole through its box, and was never seen again" - do we know when this was?
  • "The ship underwent repairs at Williamstown, Victoria, after running aground in the Tamar River in 1943" - did another ship replace her on the Bass Strait run during this period? Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi Nick, tks for stopping by. Don't have time to action tonight but the first four suggestions sound okay to me, the "They were powered" bit I might leave to Sturm, and the last two I'll double-check next time I'm in the Mitchell. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I've incorporated your suggestions, Nick, although I'm honestly not sure that readers need to be told exactly why workers were pulled off civilian construction given that the lede mentions that construction was suspended after the start of WWI.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
        • It's obvious to you and I, but not necessarily to people who don't know the dates World War I took place between or what this involved for the shipbuilding industry ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Hi again Nick, no date with (I mean for!) the devil, and nothing about another boat taking over while Nairana was repaired in 1943 but it wasn't for very long so I've clarified that at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ian. I also had a look in Trove for stories about the Tasmanian devil, with no luck (though I did find an entertaining range of stories about other Tasmanian devils breaking free from cages over the years!). I'm now pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Damn, sorry, I should've mentioned I also looked in Trove before going to the Mitchell to check the book -- at least the search was entertaining, and tks for the support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support just a few comments.
  • "and floatplanes" unless the wheeled aircraft were deployed from the floatplanes, I think this should be "as well as floatplanes"
  • But doesn't the "mix of" earlier in the sentence negate the need for this?
  • I'd still do it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, but I've deleted the "mix of" since that's now redundant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • "Northern Dvina River in Russia" the "in Russia" hangs off the back of this sentence unnecessarily. I think it should be deleted.
  • " Kem, Russia. "similarly I see no need for the Russia. The reader was told where she was going, to North Russia, and there are references to her leaving Russia.
  • "after the war to be rebuilt ..." We're 2 1/2 years on from that. Perhaps say after her service in Russia.
Interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Good ideas, and we should have caught the redundant "in Russia" bits earlier. Not that I'm beating myself up about it or anything, but they just seem so obvious in retrospect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tks Wehwalt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Seattle[edit]

  • File:HMS Nairana (1917).jpg needs a copyright file to explain why it's public domain in the United States as well
    • I don't think that it does given "HMSO has declared that the expiry of Crown Copyrights applies worldwide"; I also note that image licensing was given a clean bill of health by Nikki above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Even without that provision this would be public domain in the US because of its age, but we generally have accepted the HMSO declaration as sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • HMS Nairana was a passenger ferry that was requisitioned by the Royal Navy (RN) as an aircraft carrier/seaplane carrier MOS:SLASH recommends to avoid use of the slash
    • Conway's calls her a seaplane carrier while Layman uses "mixed" carrier. I've adopted the former for the sake of simplicity.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Consequently only limited internal modifications, notably the addition of three large workshops what makes this notable?
    • Notable because otherwise a lack of facilities cripples her ability to maintain her aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • designed to produce a total of 6,700 shaft horsepower (5,000 kW) can you abbreviate shaft horsepower to shp here, as you use its abbreviation in "7,003 shp (5,222 kW)" below
    • Nope; no abbreviations on first use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you abbreviate deadweight as (DWT) on first use and proceed to use its abbreviation. You do the same for Royal Navy. Why should this differ? Seattle (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Look again, both are spelled out in full earlier in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, and shaft horsepower isn't abbreviated on first use, like deadweight and Royal Navy are. The article reads: The ship was powered by two sets of Parsons geared steam turbines designed to produce a total of 6,700 shaft horsepower (5,000 kW), each driving one three-bladed propeller. The turbines were powered by steam provided by six Babcock & Wilcox water-tube boilers at a working pressure of 202 psi (1,393 kPa; 14 kgf/cm2). On her sea trials, Nairana made 7,003 shp (5,222 kW) and reached 20.32 knots (37.63 km/h; 23.38 mph). Why don't you abbreviate shaft horsepower "shp" immediately after its first use? Seattle (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
            • Because it doesn't fit inside the template.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There the ship was inspected by Rear-Admiral John Green, Rear-Admiral Commanding in the White Sea, the first "Rear-Admiral" seems superfluous. Seattle (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It reads oddly, but that's exactly how it should read. The first use is his rank, the second is part of his job title.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the article at the MILHIST A-class review and my concerns were addressed there. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Tks Nate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Space Seed[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC), Miyagawa (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

One of Star Trek: The Original Series most influential episodes, and the origin of Khan Noonien Singh, one of Star Trek‍ '​s most well-known villains. Article has been through a GA and had a copyedit by Laser Brain. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment Not familiar to movie articles, but could the "Legacy" section be expanded? It seems rather bare to me compared to the coverage of earlier sections. Gug01 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Miya and I have looked, and I don't believe there's much missing from that section. The episode had a big impact on subsequent Star Trek episodes, but the enduring legacy of the Khan character and to the franchise mostly comes from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support On prose. Easy to read, engaging, just the right number of pictures. Really great article, Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The images... some are not PD/et al, so is this an issue? If it is not, perhaps we could include a shot from the episode as well? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • All of the images currently in the article are either freely licensed or PD, although a case could be made for a fair-use image. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Take a look here. The image is clearly commercially made. The uploader put a no-copyright claim due to a missing copyright notice. Many of the others in the article appear to be similar. Now if the claim is correct, and images before 1989 do require a copyright notice, then practically every image I've ever used falls into that category (yay!). But I don't think it's right. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As the tag indicates, images before 1977 first published in the US required a copyright notice in order to still be copyrighted in the US now. Other countries/circumstances have other requirements, but that's correct for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating! Ok, well I need to go re-label about 100 images... Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments More specific image review:

  • I alwayss have my eyes open for PD Star Trek related photos-maybe now that you mention it, one will turn up ;-) We hope (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • File:Ricardo Montalbán-Fay Spain.jpg - Unless the reverse is also available, we cannot confirm that this is, indeed, PD. Although generally such stills were released without copyright notices, there still were many with such notices. Unless the lack of a notice can be confirmed, this image shouldn't be used.
User:Crisco 1492, I see the photo came from a blog that attributes it to The Greatest Show on Earth (TV series). It aired from 1963-1964 on ABC (US) and the production company was Desilu, who was also the original production company for Star Trek. When I went through original registrations for Star Trek, I found that Desilu had registered nothing but the film Yours, Mine, and Ours from 1966-1969; no registrations but this one in film-nothing in artwork. If this would fix things, I can look through original registrations in film and artwork for 1963 and 1964 for both Desilu and ABC (US). It's doubtful that there are any, but can look. We hope (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if there was no registration, that would be enough confirmation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Bad news-I got as far as original film registrations for 1963-Here's the registration for the program. This is said to have come from The Hanging Man with an airdate in November 1963. We do have at least one PD photo from the program File:Lucille Ball Jack Palance Greatest Show on Earth 1964.JPG, but it has an uncropped front and back with an ABC release. Guess this needs to go for PD. We hope (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed that image from the article. We hope, can I leave it to you to flag this up at Commons? I just realised I don't have a clue how to flag PD issues there! Miyagawa (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Images are okay — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

  • DAB links: John Winston and Juan Ortiz  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't need to list the broadcast date twice in the lead
  • Reworked to remove the second appearance. Miyagawa (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • references to it appear in episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise - I'd expect that this is a reference to the background (Eugenics Wars, which was also referenced in DS9 with Bashir, BTW; I recall something about how genetic engineering had been outlawed following the Eugenics wars, when Bashir is first found to be genetically enhanced; also, TAS "The Infinite Vulcan" references the Wars) and not "Space Seed" itself, as the episode is set after Enterprise.
  • I've added references to the DS9 episode - I've split the Legacy section into two subsections, one dealing with Khan specifically and so contains TWOK and Into Darkness related material, and the other dealing specifically with the Eugenics Wars. I still need to add "The Infinite Vulcan" related material. Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've now added "The Infinite Vulcan" - admittedly not much, as the source I have which mentions it only has a plot description for that episode of TAS and no background information. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Kirk selects McGivers because she specializes in late 20th-century history and culture. - Feels kinda out of sync with the flow of the paragraph. Might want to rework
  • I've reworked the 20th century mention into the following paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Specialism or specialty? Or field of interest (minus historical, of course)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed it to field of interest - I think that sounds best. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • rest of his supermen - superpeople?
  • Changed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One element introduced in the second draft that remained in the final version was Kirk marooning Khan and his crew on a new planet. - The character wasn't Khan yet
  • You use "writer" a bit too much in the last paragraph of Writing
  • I've removed a couple, and also trimmed a bit of "credit/credited" out as well. Miyagawa (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • has never seen "Space Seed" - as of?
  • Added "as of 1993" as that was the date for the source material. Miyagawa (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Contemporary reviews? 70s? The reception section is way too FUTON biased.
  • I've made a request for access, which might turn up something. Miyagawa (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • That would be nice, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well good news, I'm just waiting for my new account to be upgraded to full access. I took a preliminary search and I've already found The Indiana Gazette calling "Space Seed" "a solid piece of science fiction" on February 16, 1967. So this looks like that issue should get solved in the next couple of days. Miyagawa (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I now have access - in fact it wasn't solid, it was good according to the review. I've managed to add two reviews. There were others, but they were identical to the two I've added word for word, or only gave a plot overview. Miyagawa (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • her review for Trek Nation. - or her review for TrekNation? One's a documentary, one's a website
    • Fixed - is now linked to TrekNation. Also, I thought I should explain why this particular fansite has been included. Currently it is one of only four fan sites to be linked to from the main Star Trek website, but in fact in the past it had much closer ties. From going back to previous versions of the ST website, they used to use TrekNation as one of their main news pages. So much so that when you clicked on "More News" on a couple of previous designs, it actually took you straight to TrekNation. Miyagawa (talk) 22:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • with the exception of the DVD containing "Turnabout Intruder". This featured two versions of the original Star Trek pilot, "The Cage". - that second sentence is probably better as a footnote
  • Changed to a footnote as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No mention of the Blish text adaptation? Airing of the remastered version (i.e. non-DVD)?
  • I've added the Blish adaptation under Home Media Release (technically it was the first version of the episode available for home use). Miyagawa (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I did enjoy reading it. (Any thoughts on the broadcast version of the remastered edition? Might be hard to get a secondary source on that) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Possibly. I'll keep looking though. Miyagawa (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Found it! I hit across the idea of checking for zap2it on, but when that didn't pan out, I checked the archived official Star Trek website from 2007 and found both the air dates for the remastered versions but also a description about the station releases. I'd figured that UPN had shown it, but apparently they went straight into syndication with the new versions. Miyagawa (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The whole Chekov thing is not included (don't have to include the joke about Khan remembering Chekov in II because he held up the bathroom, but still... it's been discussed quite a bit)
    • The Pavel Chekov article has some references, though I can't vouch for the quality of all of them. I only mention this because it's been termed "the apparent gaffe notorious throughout Star Trek fandom" (i.e. probably worth a sentence, or at least a footnote). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we found the same source! I've added a couple of lines to the legacy section. Miyagawa (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you checked the Memory Alpha article (link) for referenced information that is both useful and verifiable? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Examples of unused possible sources include Star Trek: The Magazine issue 120 ("Space Seed" flashback), The Star Trek Compendium, Star Trek Concordance, and Star Trek Chronology. Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology may possibly have near-contemporary reviews etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
      • The Magazine flashback doesn't have anything usable in terms of contemporary reception. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Checked the Spaceflight Chronology, doesn't have anything of use other than some non-canon information about the DY-100 ship class. Miyagawa (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Checked the compendium (openlibrary had a borrowable copy) and found a couple of snippets about things being reused later, but otherwise everything else is covered. I was hoping to find something about the Chekov thing in there but it had relatively little to say about TWOK at all. Miyagawa (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Openlibrary also had a copy of the Chronology, so I've used that as a source towards the start of the Eugenics Wars section but otherwise there's nothing extra to add. Miyagawa (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just a note: from the 20th to 25th I'll be in Purwokerto and may not have access to the internet. I'll continue reviewing when I return. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose and images. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: great work putting together this article, but I would definitely recommend that the nominator look into archiving the web links that we have here (as I have done, for instance, for Uncle David). Otherwise we may find ourselves in a situation three years down the line where the original link has died, and thus chunks of information will actually have to be removed from this article, and its GA/FA status might be threatened as a result. Better safe than sorry! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Very good point - I will endeavour to archive all the non-paywall web sources. Miyagawa (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • They've all been archived now. I also discovered that there were a pair of duplicated cites - which I've also fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I found no significant issues. The article satisfies the requirements for a featured article and should be promoted. Praemonitus (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "as of 1993": Do you have information more recent than 1993?
  • "Cox found that as he wrote it after the events were meant to have taken place as predicted by the television series that he had an issue, but instead of describing the Eugenics Wars as a massive World War-style scenario, he described it as going "the X-Files route" by having the Wars being a massive conspiracy that was not discovered until generations had passed.": Give that one another shot.
  • "subsequently": I've generally found the word to be ambiguous in history articles; try substituting "soon", "later", "later on", "consequently", or something more specific.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support - those three points have been corrected. Miyagawa (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Marvelous article on a significant television episode. The only change I would like to see concerns the critical reception section – can you add dates or indicate when the reviews were written? It provides context and makes it easier to follow chronologically. Not a big enough concern to avoid supporting though. Ruby 2010/2013 22:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added a couple of lines to explain that the second 1960s source was also around the same time as the first, and another line to indicate that the remaining reviewers were several decades after the broadcast. Thanks for the review. Miyagawa (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of video games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and a month ago tried to send this through FAC. The general response was... crickets, so two weeks later I'm trying again. Hopefully two times is the charm! Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment originally released in Japan as Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana (Japanese: 聖剣伝説DS CHILDREN of MANA Hepburn: Seiken Densetsu DS: Chirudoren obu Mana?, lit. "Legend of the Sacred Sword DS: Children of Mana") is way too long an interruption to the first sentence. The lay person shouldn't have to read two lines of alternatives, translations and transliterations of the title before he finds out that this article is about a video game. You should either trim it or relegate it to a footnote. I wonder if the DS should be introduced as a handheld console?—indopug (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Indopug: That unwieldy template is standard for Japanese video games, even FAs, but I've now moved it to a footnote and I think it does work better that way. I've also added that the DS is a handheld game console. --PresN 19:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support; looks to have been maintained fine since the previous FAC and a great article besides. Tezero (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to FAC delegates- Tezero reviewed this at the last FAC, and supported there; this support is just a carry-through of that one. --PresN 20:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by JDC808[edit]

I've gone through the article and made some copy-edits where I saw necessary. Have just a few points before I'm willing to support:

  • In the Gameplay section, it says "The player controls the unnamed main character, chosen from one of four options." However, in the Setting and characters subsection, it says "The four major characters of Children of Mana are Ferrik, Tamber, Poppen, and Wanderer." Are those not their names?
  • Story subsection, "a mysterious man garbed in black appears and attempts to take the Holy Sword, which is still stuck in the ground, but finds that it is protected by a barrier. The man disappears, and the hero takes the Holy Sword,..." How did the hero get through the barrier? Did the barrier disappear when the man did?
  • "When the Mana Lord is about to kill the hero, a group of gems appear around him to prevent his attack." I was going to copy-edit this, but need some clarification. Do the gems appear around the hero or the Mana Lord?
  • "At the end of the Path, the hero finds the Mana Lord waiting. Upon his defeat, the Mana Lord..." I assume the hero and the Mana Lord battled here, but that's completely left out. --JDC808 20:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Corrected (removed unnamed)
  • The barrier only appears to block the man when he grabs for the sword; no such barrier appears to block the hero. Reworded.
  • Changed to "the hero"; it shouldn't have been gender-specific anyways
  • Added that they fought.
@JDC808: Responded below your comments, tried to fix all four issues. --PresN 20:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Made a few more copy-edits. All of my issues have been addressed. I Support this article's promotion. --JDC808 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

I have found something.

  • In the lead, the coding for the cover art uses of brackets and resolution for the cover art instead of using the image directly doesn't appear to be the current form. I suppose changing it is optional, but it would look both consistent and tidy.
  • I don't think the "Role-playing video games introduced in 2006" and "2006 video games" should be used together.

Those are the only things that jumped out. Sorry it's not any longer, but I seriously can't think of anything else that hasn't been mentioned above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @ProtoDrake: Adjusted both (also got rid of the Nintendo DS category in favor of the Nintendo DS RPG category, by the same logic. --PresN 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • One last thing I've noticed: The RPGamer reference is lacking its publisher. The publisher is CraveOnline, I think. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @PresN:, in that case, I think I can now Support this with a clearer mind. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from GamerPro64[edit]

Planning on review this article soon. GamerPro64 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Sorry this took so long to actually review this article. Any who, reading through the article, I think the article is sourced well enough and written throughly on the subject to give it that little bronze star. I can give a Support for this article. GamerPro64 04:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from New Age Retro Hippie[edit]

Placeholder <3 - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Judgesurreal777[edit]

Hey @PresN: and @ProtoDrake:! Been a while, I hope to more active this summer, glad to see you are keeping this project sprinting in a way no others seem to do. Article looks great, well written, covers all the bases, references are archived where appropriate. I Support its candidacy. One small point, and I may not be up to date with our current best practices on this, but shouldn't the plot section have references? Awesome job overall, never stop! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Judgesurreal777, been a while! No, even when you were more active plot sections were implicitly sourced to the game itself; plot citations to game quotes are nice, but optional. I don't have a transcript of the game (I worked out the plot by skimming through lets play videos), so I don't have an easy way of getting game quotes for optional referencing. If you know of one, let me know and I'll add some. --PresN 15:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, @Judgesurreal777, long time no see. Happy memories abound of our previous encounters. Hope to see more of you (well, not see exactly, but you know what I mean). --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @PresN: and @ProtoDrake:, you guys are the best! Good to know about the plot stuff, if I come across a game manual I might offer it or add it myself, but no biggie, looks Featured Article ready. I cannot wait for a Mana series Featured Topic, I always wanted to see it happen :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Lactarius_rubidus_spores_1000x.JPG: what is meant to be the description on the image page?
This looks like a broken template linking to the original source of the image (Mushroom Observer). I am not familiar with Commons and don't know if this can be repaired. Can anybody help? Otherwise I can replace the spore image with one of slightly lower quality, but with a good description. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fixed that (just skimming) - the template name was misspelled. GermanJoe (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Uniflora-root.jpg: do we have evidence of the listed permission? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I've asked the user that uploaded the image. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I had received permission via email correspondence with Martin Bidartondo (who I had also fact check the article on mycoheterotrophy when it was initially written). I never went through the formal documentation procedure, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Peter G. Werner. Is this accepted as evidence? The image is surely informative, and I would like to keep it in the article. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Peter, if you still have that correspondence I would suggest forwarding it to OTRS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • I'm not a fungus expert, but I've reviewed a few fungus GANs, so will make some comments as a "layreader"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • In the last half of the articles, there are a lot of single sentence paragraph, is it possible to merge some of these? Looks a bit fragmentary/disjointed now.
  • There are three or more "introduction" sentences in the beginning of some sections that end without citations, but they should probably have citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, was offline over the weekend. I'll see how I can integrate your comments this evening – thanks anyway! Tylototriton (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Merged some paragraphs in the "Chemistry" and two other small sections.
However, after reviewing, I do not see where an introductory sentence in a section would need citations. They are merely "wrappers", and the facts they contain are all backed up through citations later on in the respective section. Could you give me an example where you think a citation is necessary? Tylototriton (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, in FAs, it is best to have citations after every paragraph to be safe, including "wrappers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced; I feel citations should be used where necessary and not simply "to be safe". For me, these introductory wrappers act a bit like the lead for the whole article; the sections as a whole have references where appropriate. But I'm not a very experienced editor, if others support your view, I can add references... Tylototriton (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd do it myself. But well, let's see what do others say? You have any view on this, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "The name Russulaceae was first validly used in 1907" I'd suggest replace "used" with "named". FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Reformulated this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "does not meet the requirements for valid publication" Why? Couldn't hurt to elaborate in a sentence.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The agaricoid species in Lactarius" Why is agaricoid italicized? It is not a genus name or foreign word.
  • Likewise for: "Laterally stiped (pleurotoid)"
  • There are more such issues in the rest of the article.
Used italics when I introduced a technical term. In that particular section, paragraphs are structured by fruitbody morphology, so I used those keywords as "anchors". IMO this improves readability. I noticed though the use of italics was not consistent in the "Chemistry" section, fixed this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Some characters of the mushroom-forming genera (marked with *) can be less obvious or absent in tropical species" Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the asterisk before the list?
It does. Rearranged the paragraphs. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "It is the only among the mushroom genera in Russulaceae" The only what?
The only genus. I think this is correct English, but I'm happy to reformulate if it really sounds strange. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "In the Tropics" Why capitalisation?
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Their basal position suggests this has been the ancestral trophic mode" What basal means here may no be clear to most readers.
Changed "basal" to "early-branching". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "subsequent authors reaffirm nevertheless that "[n]one of the corticioid species in the family shows any sign of mycorrhizal activity." How can the statement of one writer be attributed to "subsequent authors"?
True, fixed this. Somehow thought the paper cited had more than one author. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "few information is available on" Is this proper English?
No. Fixed to "little information". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We could have an etymology under taxonomy. What is the name derived from?
As for all fungus and plant families, the name is derived from the type genus, so any etymology would be better placed in the Russula article (which actually has info on this). Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "popular mushroom-forming fungi" If only some of them are edible, I'd assume the group is not "popular" as a whole? Not the intro doesn't state why they are "popular".
Popular means well known and easily recognisable, even if not eaten. Not sure how I can make this clearer. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Just write well-known then? Popular seems a bit informal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That should be it, Tylototriton. When these issues are addressed, I should be ready for support. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Worked through your suggestions, thanks for the thorough review! Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - All issues adressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Looks good - few queries below:

  • I'd change "has significantly changed ideas about the taxonomy of the family." to something like "has significantly changed ideas about relationships within the family." - and tchange the next "relationships" to "affinities" in the next sentence. makes the segment more accessible to the lay reader without sacrificing meaning.
  • Link genera at first instance in body of text.
  • Can go either way on refs for the wrappers....

Otherwise looks good and worthy of FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Included your suggestions, thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Coord notes[edit]

@Casliber and FunkMonk: How are things looking for you guys now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll look though this today... FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support – Article essentially meets the FA criteria. There is some link duplication, redundant wording (use of 'also', for example), and a vague 'rather small compound', but nothing that derails the presentation. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Tried to address some of the redundant wording. Tylototriton (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tylototriton: You can install this script to help you spot duplicate links; I removed a few that seemed excessive, the rest I leave to your discretion. Now it's just occurred to me that this might be your first FAC nomination, in which case we usually ask for a reviewer to perform a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if any reviewers still watching the page have done that pls let me know, otherwise I'll post a request at WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Installed the script, but it seems you've found them all? I linked taxa in the phylogeny and the image boxes even if they were already linked somewhere in the text, for more superficial readers... Tylototriton (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Welcome to FAC, I see you've done quite a bit of high-quality writing.
  • "their size ranges from 2–17 mm diameter or less in Russula campinensis to 30 cm (12 in) ...": I fixed the garden path ... most will read that as "from 2 to 17", until they get all the way to the second "to", and realize that's the "to" that goes with the "from". To fix it, I had to simplify, and decided to drop the "2" ... if that's important, you might go with "as low as 2" instead, or rewrite.
  • "clustered in "rosettes",": ambiguous, since both the word "rosettes" and quote marks in general can mean different things. Link it instead of enclosing it in quote marks.
Term is not really necessary. Replaced it with cluster. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but reluctantly, because parts of it read like the contents of a database rather than an encyclopedia article. I think perhaps some pruning would fix the problem, but what to prune is up to the editors of our biology articles, particularly the fungus articles, not me. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for ce; some information got however mixed up in the lead, brought that back in shape. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Spotchecks (online)[edit]

A few (non-academic) spotchecks, as requested on WT:FAC, focussing on 10 randomly picked online sources:

  • ref #1 (3 refs) - mostly OK, but the exact detail "now-obsolete" in usage "b" is apparently not mentioned - the book only mentions this genus as "chromospore", please double-check
  • ref #5 - OK
  • ref #17 (6 refs) - all OK
  • ref #38 - OK
  • ref #50 - OK
  • ref #57 (3 refs) - all OK
  • ref #97 (2 refs) - first OK, second one sources "the Mediterranean orchid Limodorum abortivum only associates with Russula delica and closely related species", however the source notes "a predominant association with ectomycorrhizal fungi of the genus Russula in Limodorum abortivum and its close relatives ..." (emphasis mine) - it looks like the article's statement is too strong and exclusive here.
  • ref #105 - OK
  • ref #110 - OK (general summary statement, covered by source)
  • ref #112 - OK (all mentioned examples and their regions sourced).

Aside from 2 questions, all statements are covered by their sources without any signs of close paraphrasing. When a reference was used multiple times, all usages have been checked (but IANAM). GermanJoe (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

  • The PDF-link for ref #35 is acting up (404 error and the archive server for it is down for maintenance, grml). Not a big problem, as a JSTOR-link is provided as well - but you might want to keep an eye on it (or just delete the 2nd link, if it doesn't come back soon). GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured article reviews[edit]

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Ghosts I–IV[edit]

Notified: Drewcifer3000, WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Metal, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Industrial

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are whole sections not sourced: Track listing, all but 2 on Personnel are unsourced. There are unreliable sources: IMDb, and techdirt; and sources not formatted correctly. LADY LOTUSTALK 11:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Why were instructions not followed to post concerns to the article Talk page first? I have this page watchlisted and would help address any concerns. Recommend closing this as premature. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Coming to also remind Lady Lotus to review FAR instructions and give talk page notice well in advance; recommend closing and housekeeping delete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
My mistake, I am not used to these FAR or FLRC or anything like that. I will take it to the talk page, thank you. LADY LOTUSTALK 15:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Placing this on hold to allow talk-page step to occur. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: , nothing happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Off hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus: re off hold now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, Lady Lotus' concerns were addressed. So, I'm unsure under what pretext this FAR is continuing. --Laser brain (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
If so this should quickly get consensus to keep and will be closed as such. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Coordination#On_hold_2 for process discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
That :) Laser brain, I don't know how to better write this citation ... maybe you have ideas ??
  • Ghosts I-IV PDF booklet
Also, if Lady Lotus indicates her concerns are resolved, this can be a quick Keep without FARC. But there are still issues. I went to check on the funky punctuation in quotes, and found a dead link:
  • Viglione contributed percussion to tracks 19 and 22. He stated that Reznor's instructions to him were to "build a drumkit. Piece together any stuff that you want to bang on; rent what you want to rent. Have fun and ... be creative—See where your mind and your ideas take you."[1]
Perhaps you know if that blog is a reliable source? If so, we can look it up in, but we may want to take a closer look at everything else. Also, the External links checker in the toolbox indicates some other citation issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk)


  1. ^ "Inside Trent Reznor's Sanctum". Rock April 3, 2008. Retrieved April 4, 2008. 
I'll dive back in and take a look at those. If the blog was written by the developers of Rock Band via an interview with Reznor, it should be reliable. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Could you look at the others that pop up as iffy under the External links checker? For example, one is a youtube ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yep. I found stuff to do—there are several problems with currency of information in addition to the dead links, etc. Working on it now. --Laser brain (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Status: I have fixed various issues with broken links and out-of-date information in the article, plus done some random editing. Hopefully everyone's concerns have been addressed. Lady Lotus, it would be nice to get an update from you regarding your satisfaction with the article's current state. --Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

When Laser and Lady Lotus are satisfied, I'm good for Close without FARC. (I do worry though, over the long run, that we don't specify as of dates whenever we mention $$ amounts-- 20 years from now, those numbers will need inflation adjustment, and I don't think FAC and FAR do a very good job of staying on top of that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Once the IMDb source is replaced, then I will be satisfied. LADY LOTUSTALK 18:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lady Lotus: Ah, missed that one. I moved that statement out of the lead (looks like it was a drive-by add-on) and changed the source to The Huffington Post. --Laser brain (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
If there is a way to replace that one too, I have always been told that Huffington Post isn't reliable because of them being "biased" or something. I've never been able to use them in FC, so if you could replace it with something else, THEN I'll be satisfied ;) LADY LOTUSTALK 18:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lady Lotus: I'm unconcerned—I've read over at RSN that HuffPost should be used with care on BLPs and controversial matters, but the tracks appearing in the film is completely uncontroversial and verifiable to anyone who simply watches the film. I added another source anyway. --Laser brain (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Works for me LADY LOTUSTALK 18:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm good ... Keep without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the original nominator is gone, who is keeping this watchlisted, so we don't end up right back here next year? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'll adopt it. It shouldn't need anything more than routine maintenance until the unlikely event that Reznor releases another series of Ghosts. I'm subscribed to his email list so I'll know if that happens. --Laser brain (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Cool, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Rama's Arrow, WP Archaeology, WP India
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion which has not been maintained to standard; see talk page notice from 16 April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Notified: WP Textile Arts, WP Mexico, WP Food and Drink, WP Insects

URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from 16 April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

History of Michigan State University[edit]

Notified: Pulley12, Jtmichcock, WP Universities, WP Michigan
URFA nom.

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from 16 April. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Saravask, WP Plants, WP Food and Drink, WP Herbs and Spices, WP Agriculture, WP Iran

This is a 2006 promotion with numerous issues noted on talk over a long period of time. These include biomedical claims that need MEDRS-compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

PMID 25072266 could be addressed for comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PMID 23538079 needs to be examined for MEDRS. Adverse effects per PMID 23472485 should be discussed. PMID 22432635 and PMID 23971874 are not used.

There are numerous harv ref errors, so it's unclear which sources are being used without checking one by one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dixie (song)[edit]

Notified: Main editors retired, WP American music, WP MT, WP Songs
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has taken on some uncited text, unaddressed since talk notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1928 Okeechobee hurricane[edit]

Notified: Jdorje, WP Puerto Rico, WP Caribbean, WP Tropical cyclones
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion with some deficiencies noted on talk last month; they should be easy to deal with, but haven't been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't taken much time to review the article (it almost certainly does need to be brought back up to speed), but from the aforementioned talk page thread:

I'm confused by the very first sentence of the lead which states it "was the second deadliest tropical cyclone in the history of the United States, behind only the 1900 Galveston hurricane" because, later in the article, the (unsourced and possibly outdated) table titled 'Deadliest Atlantic hurricanes' lists Mitch as having surpassed both.

The US isn't the only nation bordering the Atlantic Ocean. Not sure how those two stats could be contradictory in any way. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Juliancolton, I'm having the same problem with this article I'm finding in many older storm articles; data is not cited in the lead, and it isn't always found in the body of the article. I can't find the 4,000 deaths in the body of the article; it would be good to cite data in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hurricanehink is working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There is inconsistent formatting of author names in the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Chrisieboy, David Underdown, Nortonius, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject East Anglia, WikiProject England

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been regularly updated in the past few years, which means it no longer meets the FA criteria that it did back in 2007, when it was promoted. As noted on the article talk page, demographic statistics in the article were vandalised and not reverted until I spotted this more than a year later, which indicated to me that editors haven't been keeping a close enough watch on the article to ensure the FA standard is maintained (and there may well be other vandalism that has crept in). There are now quite a lot of unsourced or dated claims in the article, and as a result it no longer qualifies as comprehensive or well-researched. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at FAR ... eight days between talk page notice and FAR listing is cutting it close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, SandyGeorgia, I didn't see that there was a guideline of two to three weeks for each stage. I'm happy for this to be put on hold, although I also note that not a single editor has posted a response in those eight days (which has reinforced my sense that no one has been actively editing or monitoring the article of late). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether to put it on hold is a decision the @WP:FAR coordinators: will make, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, this first part of FAR is preliminary to the FARC proper below, so I don't think we need to stick strictly to pre-preliminary discussion on the talk page. I will ping some other near-locals (Hey @Dweller: and @The Rambling Man:!) as this is their neck of the woods (geographically). A brief perusal show uncited sentences and some prose that could be tightened, so let's leave it here and get more eyes now. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Directed here from WT:UKGEO, I was ready to make some points about the article, but the above comments aren't encouraging. Should editors post here, at the article talk page, or in "FARC proper below" (which doesn't seem to exist yet)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, PaleCloudedWhite, and thanks for coming here to participate. The three steps (talk page, featured article review (FAR) and featured article removal candidate (FARC)) are explained at WP:FAR. At this stage, we're supposed to identify problems with the article and discuss how to improve it. In a few weeks, we'll move on to the FARC stage where people will vote to either keep or remove the FA status. So you don't need to wait until the FARC stage to comment - the only issue as far as I know is that I started the FAR a bit early. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite just put comments here, where we can see, judge and improve.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. Well, the most immediate impression is that the article structure doesn't follow the guideline at WP:UKTOWNS. I don't know if that has any bearing on FA status, though even if it doesn't, it still seems odd that the geography section is at the bottom of the page, and makes no mention of geology but does cover linguistics. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Chrisieboy has now started to address some of the problems with the article and I will try to help out. Given this, and that I was a bit trigger-happy with moving this to FAR, I hope we can agree to give it a fair bit of time for improvements to be made before moving to the FARC stage. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Chrisieboy: @Cordless Larry:, at ten days now, how is progress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Some incremental progress is being made, SandyGeorgia, although it's almost all thanks to Chrisieboy so far and help from more editors would no doubt be welcome and also speed up the improvements. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I left just a few sample edits, but the amount of work needed here is quite substantial.

  1. There is dated text throughout, complicated by a lack of "as of" dates. Pls see WP:REALTIME.
  2. Serious WP:OVERLINKing everywhere. We don't need to link common terms that everyone knows and that readers won't click on from this article.
  3. WP:ITALICS, quotes are not italicized.
  4. MOS:LQ, logical quotation.
  5. Citations-- missing information. Every citation needs a publisher, and an author and date when those are available. Websites need access dates.
  6. Bibliography, are all of those used in the article?
  7. Image captions which are full sentences should have final punctuation; sentence fragments should not.
  8. There are WP:REALTIME issues everywhere ... sample:
    In 1994 Peterborough was designated one of four environment cities in the UK and it is now working to become the UK's acknowledged environment capital.
    Now means ... when ?

There is a quite substantial amount of work needed here just to update the text and clean up the citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Geology of the Capitol Reef area[edit]

Notified: Mav, WP Earthquakes, WP Utah, WP Geology
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAR for History of the Grand Canyon area came at a bad time. But I should have some free time for this one after this weekend. BTW - I don't check my watch list anymore so the most effective way to get my attention is to leave a message on my talk page. --mav (reviews needed) 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
ah, ha ... so we can credit URFA for dragging you back in here !! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Something like that. :) --mav (reviews needed) 02:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the current citations have this wording added to them already: "For the whole paragraph, except where noted". So it should not be a problem adding more cites as needed once I get all the books in front of me to confirm. --mav (reviews needed) 02:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
mav, please keep the page posted on your timing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No edits yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going through my relevant books now. --mav (reviews needed) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
First pass done. Refs distributed and many overlinks nixed. --mav (reviews needed) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Mav, you haven't edited since 28 April-- are you waiting for feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[edit]

Notified: Halibutt, WP Correction and Detention Facilities, WP MilHist, WP Austria, WP Germany, WP Poland
URFA nom

Review commentary[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for pinging me, I would respond at the talk page if someone notified me of it. Sure, the article did not see any substantial changes in recent years (ever since I wrote most of it), but I believe most of the issues you raise above are easily fixable, there's nothing wrong with the article itself I believe.
As to specific issues, I took the liberty to reply at the article's talk page. In short, out of roughly 10 issues you raised, most are either non-issues (at least I can't see link farms in the see also section, can't see hidden text, can't see any problems with the sections and so on) or were already fixed (en dashes, some 8 in-line citations still using <ref> instead of {{sfn}} and so on). And in the case of the rest you would have to raise specific concerns for me to be able to fix the article - or the matter is up to debate (as in the case of lists you say should be prosified, whereas they were converted from prose to lists specifically per WP:EMBED).
All in all - I'd be happy to fix the article, but would need some help from you in pointing me to what there is to be fixed. Please be specific. //Halibutt 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Responding and addressing issues on talk is good -- thanks!! -- no need to clutter the FAR with back and forth on ongoing improvements. I am off for the day, but will get back to you this pm on article talk with more specifics (I disagree that there is not significant work to be done, but am confident it can be done, and will give you more detail on article talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Preliminary feedback on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment not relevant to WP:WIAFA moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: because the original nominator seems concerned that I may be expressing personal preference, additional commentary from someone other than MOI on issues or deficiencies in this article might be helpful. There is a lengthy section on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look sometime in the next 48 hours. Just popped on for a tic - this will need some reading and digesting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
In January 1945, the camps, directed from the central office in Mauthausen, contained roughly 85,000 inmates. - what does "directed from the central office" mean in this sentence?
since Germany started the war against Poland in September 1939 - since = "after" or since = "because of"?
Prisoners were also "rented out" as slave labour, - don't need quotes here I think
last para of Liberation and post-war heritage needs inline references
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs) 01:48, April 21, 2015‎

Move to FARC, at the two-week mark, there has been some improvement, but in spite of walls of text on the talk page outlining the problems with MOS, prose, citations, and comprehensiveness, the substantive issues have not been addressed, and some unwillingness to address those issues is apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The review section largely concerned MOS, referencing, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
An IP edit that needs to be verified by someone who has the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Australia[edit]

Notified: WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP Australian noticeboard, original nominator and most active editors long gone
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, some edits, but little improvements in issues of uncited text and MOS breaches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section centre on MOS, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

South Australian state election, 2006[edit]

Notified: Timeshift9, WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Elections and Referendums, WikiProject Australian politics, WikiProject South Australia

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because: 1. There's a lot uncited sentences; 2. The lead is too short, doesn't covered even half of the article. Promoted December 14, 2006, talk page notice March 2. Nominator still very active, notefied.Jarodalien (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I think this is definitely evidence of how standards have changed over time. I think it basically meets GA status (or if not, at least could with a small amount of work), but falls well short of modern FA standards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section concerned referencing and lead issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, nothing happening. And that infobox is utterly dreadful-- it takes over my whole screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - Numerous 1- and 2-sentence paragraphs, a 1-sentence subsection, unbelievably large infobox and tables, WP:MOSCOLOR issues with background shading in tables, uncited text, bare urls in citations, and an insufficient lead. FA standards sure have changed. Maralia (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


Notified: Rockpocket, WP Cephalopods, WP Animal anatomy, WP Molecular and Cellular Biology
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. There are problems beyond the lack of citations, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I wrote the original content back in 2006. I don't think it is too far away from FA, but sadly agree that it does not meet current standards and its narrative flow has suffered from piecemeal development over the years. I unfortunately do not have the time to maintain this myself these days, but would be very willing to assist as much as I could if anyone wishes to take it on. Rockpocket 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section largely concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kid A[edit]

Notified: WikiProjects Albums and Alternative music

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in nine clean up categories: Articles needing additional references (January 2015), Pages with citations having bare URLs, Pages with citations lacking titles, Articles lacking reliable references (January 2015), Articles with unsourced statements (January 2015), Articles that may contain original research (October 2014), Wikipedia articles needing factual verification (October 2014, January 2015), Articles with failed verification (January 2015). DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments Having worked on the article for a couple of days now, I've realised that its problems run very deep.

  • Even apart from the stuff that's been tagged (as mentioned above), a lot of stuff is sourced to blogs, fansites, university term-papers, and obscure, niche publications. Given that this album has received Sgt Pepper-level adulation from all manner of mainstream sources, this is unacceptable.
  • The article is also incomplete; the Legacy section needs to be expanded to incorporate said adulation.
  • The Recording and Music sections suffer from a lot of overlap and repetition.
  • The Reception section doesn't really represent the breadth of opinions that accompanied the album's release.
  • The prose is often choppy; a clear narrative doesn't shine through, making reading tiresome.

Keeping this at FA standard will require more of a rewrite-from-the-ground-up effort than merely finding some missing sources. OK Computer Featured article should be a good model.—indopug (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Popcornduff did an excellent job rewriting the Release section and seems to have more work lined up. I myself want to concentrate on The Communist Manifesto till 14 April (when the WP:Core Contest ends), but will try to chip in with copyedits etc after that.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still working on this. It would be super useful if someone (not me as I find it super tedious) could update the professional ratings box with some better sources. We can have a maximum of 10 (there's only 8 at the moment) and maybe get some more interesting publications in there. Perhaps some negative reviews would be good too, for demonstrating how divisive it was on release? Then we have a separate reviews box for the collector's edition rerelease, like the OK Computer and Hail to the Thief articles do, showing a wall of 5/5s. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please try to address the unreliable sources that are still tagged in the article. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, duh. Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, stalled ... besides tags and sourcing issues, pls address spaced WP:EMDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
For everyone's information, it's still my plan to dramatically rewrite this article (you can see my work in progress on my sandbox), but it's not going to happen soon. So yep, do what you gotta do. IMO this article hasn't been worthy of FA for years or maybe ever. Popcornduff (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC and hope for future progress. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness, prose, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Though improved, problems remain; as shown by the remaining tags: lacking reliable references from January 2015, needing additional references from January 2015, bare URLs, citations lacking titles, and needing factual verification from January 2015. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, insufficient progress on deficiencies noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist mainly due to lack of comprehensiveness as noted by editors of the article. Thanks to Popcornduff for the improvement thus far; hope to see it back at FAC eventually. Maralia (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Rabindranath Tagore[edit]

Notified: Saravask, WP Religion, WP West Bengal, WP Brahmoism, WP Philosophy, WP Poetry, WP Bangladesh
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been kept at standard; see the talk page note from Jan 2015. There is uncited text (some without attribution and amounting to hagiography) and a MOS tune-up is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, two weeks, a couple of edits, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements; weasel-words; harv errors. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - Major work is needed. There are eight citation needed tags, an according-to-whom tag, undefined terminology (pandit?), redundancy (his renunciation of knighthood is mentioned anew in two separate sections), prose issues ("His artist's eye for his handwriting were revealed"?), and MOS and layout problems. Maralia (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway[edit]

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard
URFA nom
Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
  • Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
  • Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
    • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
    • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
      • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
  • Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
    • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
  • Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
    • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • instead of:
    • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
    • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
  • There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
    • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
  • On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
  • Sentences should not start with numbers.
  • Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
    • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
  • These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
    • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
  • Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
    • And ???

In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Review response

Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.

  • I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
  • Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
  • I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
  • I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
  • Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
  • No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.

Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
  2. In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
  3. Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
    • (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
    • First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
    • Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
    • tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  4. More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,
    Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007
    has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)
  5. Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
  6. It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...
Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)
  1. "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
  2. The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
    • A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
    • A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
  3. Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
  4. alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
  5. comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.

This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maralia:, @DrKiernan:, fresh eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting better. I removed three external links (one was about transport in Adelaide generally; another was a personal website that had only 3 images; and the last literally did not mention the O-Bahn). I also took care of the rest of the citation formatting. Agree that some prose work is still needed, but this is getting close. I've struck my delist comment above. Thanks for your work, ScottDavis; just a little more tightening for clarity, along the lines of SG's "Prose" list immediately above. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey, User talk:Sportskido8

Review commentary[edit]

The article was promoted in November 2006 and has not been kept up to featured article standards. I'll outline below some specific issues, but overall there are a lot of citation issues, dead links, and prose problems.

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • A copyedit would help here. The writing style seems just slightly outdated and has not been kept up with since the FAC was passed, specifically all of the information about the team that has been plugged in since 2006. Examples include:
  • "Martin Brodeur, their longtime goalie signed to the team for two additional years, and ended speculation that his career was over. He will enter his 21st season, after turning 40 on May 6, 2012, during the Stanley Cup Playoffs second round, game 4 against the Philadelphia Flyers." -- this has passed by now?
  • "Goalie Johan Hedberg and rookie goalie Keith Kinkaid were used when Brodeur was injured however neither of them performed well enough to help the Devils put anything together."
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Article doesn't neglect any major facts, as I'll explain a few points down.. it instead has too much information in many spots.
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • For some of the older history, it's okay. Anything from 2001 through present time, have to say no.
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Some spots need attention.. for example "The team would now be playing right in the middle of the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut tri-state area, home to the three-time defending Stanley Cup champion New York Islanders, as well as the very popular New York Rangers." --- "the very popular New York Rangers"?
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • No problems here.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • Doesn't look too bad, however per WP:LEDE it shouldn't have any citations in it. All of the info is covered and sourced in the article.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • I believe this is still pretty OK, compared with all of the other NHL team articles. I do wonder, though if any of the "Team identity" or "Players and personnel" subsections can be combined?
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • No, for the most part. A good chunk of sources are not consistently formatted, many aren't even slightly formatted.
  • Many spots in the article are currently not sourced at all, mainly in the "2001–2007: A third Cup and the lockout" and "2007–2013: Move to Newark and Return to the Finals" sections. The first three paragraphs in the 2007-2013 section don't have a single source, as well as two paragraphs in the middle, and the final two paragraphs at the end of the section.
  • There are sections that are completely unsourced, such as "Home arenas", "Affiliate teams", and "Television and radio" and a very good amount of "Players and personnel"
  • Many dead and problematic links
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • Looks OK, but could use a review from someone more experienced with images.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • No, in some places. Excessive details on each season aren't necessary when we're dealing with an article that should cover the team's history. For example, the biggest paragraph in the entire article is currently a very detailed play-by-play of how the team did in the 2012 playoffs. All of that belongs on the article for the team in that season.

I don't believe this article would even pass a good article nomination in its' current state. A lot of work needs to be done here. Gloss 00:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See instructions at WP:FAR; you only raised the concerns on article talk two days ago.[15] Is there an earlier FAR notice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like some of the other listings at FAR/FARC didn't even get a talk page notice, so I wasn't sure how strictly that part is being followed. Forgive me if I jumped the gun. Gloss 02:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any other FAR that did not have a talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The one you nominated (Gas metal arc welding), doesn't look like it had any concerns raised on the talk page since 2011 before you nominated it for FAR. So I was going to jump right to the FAR since this article did have concerns raised about it being an FA with this thread also in 2011: Talk:New Jersey Devils#Recentism, but I added another notice a few days ago since I didn't know how recent the notice had to be. Gloss 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gloss, older notifications are okay - the idea of the talk-page step is to see whether there are people willing to step in and help get the article up to standards without a full review. But the section you point to is not so much concerns about it being FA so much as a suggestion that a new article could be created from this one and brought to FA status. I think we'll put this on hold for a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem at all. Again, my apologies. Gloss 01:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Gloss did let us know at WP:HOCKEY, so there is that. I won't make any promises about fixing it up, but I will try to give the article a read over today or tomorrow to see how much work is required and whether I want to bring it back to FA level at this time. Resolute 15:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. I've just copyedited the lead and the Kansas City/Denver sections, and no, I don't believe the FA status can be saved without a tremendous amount of work. I could copyedit the entire thing, but massive amounts of the article are completely unsourced and I really don't have the inclination to do the kind of research necessary on this article. I would happily support someone else if they were to take that work on, however. This article truly is a relic of another era in Wikipedia's history. Resolute 23:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • From a glance, I'm quite concerned about the amount of unsourced content. In fact, when an article contains multiple completely unsourced sections/subsections, that alone is an automatic fail for GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, but you all are commenting on a FAR page that is not at FAR, because it's on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It won't be on hold forever and I find it unlikely much changes between now and then. If it does change, my only comment has been to note the amount of work required. SNUGGUMS' comment is similar. Resolute 15:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't disagree with the basis of the FAR and thought the article was in a shoddy state when I first learned there was going to be an FAR. I've begun to work on improving it and have finished a couple of the history sections. My schedule here and elsewhere is full, but I'm going to try devoting more time to polishing up the rest of the article in the hopes of being able to pull off an improbable save. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Confident in your ability to restore-- please ping when we should have a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review. I have nominated File:KovalchuckMapleLeafs.png for deletion. The others seem OK. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Just to give everyone an update, I've just about finished citing the history sections and am going to start working on the other sections. Progress has been slower than I had wanted, but it's getting there. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Giants2008, we are approaching two months now ... how is it going? Should we move this to FARC just to keep the process on track? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If you all think it needs to be moved to the next stage, don't let me stop you. There are still a few areas that I want to add cites to anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Primary concerns raised during the review include verifiability, comprehensiveness, and length (wrt summary style). Maralia (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The citation situation is looking much better. Giants2008, could you give us an overall update? Thank you for all the work you're putting in here. Maralia (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've been too busy recently to do much to the article, but I think it's almost there. There's still one paragraph that I know of that ends without a cite, so that still needs to be fixed. Things should clear up for me within the next week to 10 days, and I'll try to wrap up my work on the article then. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing any obvious problems, and judging from the lack of delists, neither is anyone else. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – After some more copy-editing and sourcing, by myself and others, I think the article is finally there. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow, Giants, what a ton of work you have done! I'm looking through now; on this ...
  •      = current Devils player
see WP:COLOR on accessibility issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks grand to me. @Gloss: the nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This has definitely improved. Aside from Sandy's comments on accessibility, the only issue I can see is how "Fans" is too short to warrant a separate section (only two sentences), and I'm not sure it's even notable enough to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: I went ahead and removed the "Fans" section since its significance was questionable and was too short for a separate section. Looking through again, should "Hall of Famers" be in list form or prose? Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I dunno ... defer to others ... I usually object pretty strongly to any sort of listiness in articles, but that one isn't grating on me. I do wonder if the section heading "Hall of Famers" is too colloquial, and if it should just be "Hall of Fame"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't have nearly as much free time as I had in January when I opened this up. On a quick scan, it looks much better. Good job, Giants2008. I don't see any major issues left, but again, I don't have the time or energy to look deeply into it. Gloss 02:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the flow at Calgary Flames. Following that format, I changed the section header to "Hall of Fame honorees", made it a subsection of "Honored members", and took a stab at rewriting it in prose form. I think it's an improvement; take a look? Maralia (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • It does look better now :). I can now confidently say keep as the article has no outstanding issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I wrote the Calgary Flames article, so naturally, I prefer prose. ;) But it would always come down to being case by case, as prose for a team with only a handful of Hall of Famers is easy. When you get into the dozens like Montreal and Toronto, it becomes impractical. In those cases, a prose introduction with a list is better. Resolute 15:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Maralia's improvement was reverted, so we now have redundant prose in the list ... everyone's entry reads similarly. If a list is preferable to prose, at least it has to be written better. Oknazevad, since there seemed to be consensus here, pls discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said in my revert edit summary, it just comes off as a dijointed wall of text; it's really too long for one paragraph. It still reads like a choppy list. And there is no flow between the sentences; each sentence stands on its own too much. If they were each separate paragraphs it would deal better with the flow issue, but each would be a fragmentary bit that might as well have a bullet point. So that's exactly what they have. In short, the prose read terribly. It works better as a list. oknazevad (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I preferred the prose, personally. Can I try making the flow a little better? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I attempted a fix at the WP:COLOR problem by adding an asterisk on the colored fields. If that is settled, then I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I was going to make a similar edit to yours yesterday and saw this. Thanks for doing that! I lost my network access temporarily and couldn't edit here, so it worked out for the best. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski[edit]

Notified: WP BIO, WP Cryptography, WP Poland, Nihil novi

A 2006 promotion lacking in citations and needing review; FAC nominator gone since 2011. Talk page notifed Dec 20; no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

Comment: It would be a shame to lose this, because at a casual glance it doesn't look like it's missing a lot of citations. @Nihil novi: I noted that you have been editing the article and that you asked about citations on the article talk page. Generally, for an article to be FA-quality, all text needs to be cited. There are some uncited statements and paragraphs in this article. How much work do you think it would be, and do you have the requisite knowledge to add citations as needed? --Laser brain (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that most if not all the unsourced text has been added since the article achieved FA status. Much of it appears to be drawn from Polish-language publications of recent years and to be of negligible importance, e.g., that Rejewski's father was a tobacco merchant. One solution would be to just delete such unsourced trivia. Perhaps someone else would like to try his hand? Nihil novi (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: I'm willing to give it a try. If there are any disagreements about removing the information, I'll start a discussion. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC, only to keep process on track, and because although some work has been done, there is still quite a bit of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC. Apart from the uncited text, I would also argue that the prose is formatted too much like a list. Many of the paragraphs are very short -- one or two sentences only. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised above include missing citations (please tag these) and choppy prose/short paragraphs. Maralia (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look through the end sections and noted the following:

References: I see two bare urls, other incomplete citations, and an extremely long piecemeal quotation that needs better handling. Ref formatting needs some work: I see two different page number styles (234–235 vs 205–6) and punctuation inconsistency (some end with full stops).
Bibliography: There are at least eight listed works (Budiansky, Christensen, Gannon, Hinsley, Kahn 1991, Kubiatowski, Miller, Wrixon) that are not actually cited. "Lawrence, 2005" is cited once, but two 2005 Lawrence works are listed; the cite may be intended to refer to both, but it's unclear. There is a lengthy exposition on the Jakóbczyk book for no apparent reason.
External links: This needs cleanup. The St. Andrews biography doesn't really offer anything additional, and all three of the linked photographs are dead links.

It is also rather difficult to associate the citations with the Bibliography because the citations are in "lastname, year" format but the Bibliography is "firstname lastname title location publisher year". Maralia (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on it, albeit slowly. Reference formatting and the Bib will probably be the last things I hit. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to Glrx and Laser brain for cleaning up the references, bibliography, and external links—the article is looking much better. I still see a few wonky cites ( {{harvnb|Lawrence|2005}} and {{harvnb|Kozaczuk|Straszak|2004|p=74}}) that need work, and a couple of quotes (Piskor, Woytak) and other exposition (sequence of rotors; French radio intelligence) that would be better off in the Notes section rather than citations. Maralia (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several footnotes that need to be resolved and/or cleaned up; the wonky cites are there for that reason. I haven't seen an actual copy of A Conversation with M R recently (the university library's copy is missing), but I think its author is Woytak rather M. R. & Woytak; however, some outside-of-WP citations use both as authors; I'm tempted to just make it Woytak1984b; that applies to a half-dozen citations.
There are still five references that have not been templated because I'm not sure how I should reference a comment/commenter to a journal article: it's a subcontribution by a different author that is part of the same journal article/digital object.
I revamped the hard-numbered Notes to use an automated mechanism, so moving a footnote to a note is just changing <ref></ref> to a {{refn}} with group=Note.
Glrx (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Which "A Conversation with Marian Rejewski" are you referring to? The same extracts from Richard Woytak's conversation with Rejewski, plus citations from letters by Rejewski to Woytak, together under that joint title, appear first in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), pp. 50–60, then (as Appendix B) in Władysław Kozaczuk, Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two, edited and translated by Christopher Kasparek, Frederick, Maryland, University Publications of America, 1984, pp. 229–39. The two versions are identical and, except for 8 brief questions posed by Woytak, consist entirely of Rejewski's words. Nihil novi (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice progress, but lots to be done still. There are red harv ref errors all over the place, and in this version, the first two citations ... are not citations or reliable sources. I didn't check further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've provided references to Rejewski's awards cited in the infobox. Regretably, the U.K. Ministry of Defence page "cannot be found" any longer; maybe someone can locate an active reference for Rejewski's War Medal 1939–1945. Nihil novi (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

At FARC for three weeks now, and no one has finished restoring the article. There are numerous sources in the References that are no longer used: how do we know the article is comprehensive, and represents a thorough survey of the literature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. Sorry, but despite the extensive bibliography there are still uncited parts. I'm also concerned that one third of his life is summed up in two sentences, indicating a lack of comprehensiveness. There's been alot of work around formatting, but the fundamental issues remain unaddressed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. There are layers upon layers of issues here. Cleaning up the references was a step in the right direction, but it served only to reveal other problems. I don't have the subject matter knowledge to think about addressing the comprehensiveness and source problems. --Laser brain (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporarily striking my declaration until I can review the latest progress. Seems like there are enough interested parties for a potential save. --Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thanks so much for the effort, Laser brain-- at least the article was left in better shape! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. A lot of work has been done, and only three paragraphs are unreferenced. I am still somewhat concerned on whether end-of-para citations are always covering all the info in a given para. I found the dead link in the IA, will fix it now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
fact claims can be resolved with
Glrx (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I see they've been fixed. I am changing my vote to Keep; references seem to be satisfactory now. Also, I've checked his bio entry in Polish online encyclopedias ([16], [17]), first one has a similar focus on his later life, and while the second one is more balanced, we do mention all of the facts from it as well. I don't have his PSB bio (if it exists), but I think the entry is reasonably comprehensive; most sources about his life focus on his Enigma-solving period, not what happened before or after. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Still not there. Notes are still all over the map, with a mix of inline citation, cite ref citation, and no citation. I'm not convinced all of the External links belong, and they are poorly described (Bauer??). Are the unused sources listed in Further reading useful, if so, why are they not used, if not, why are we retaining them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "Further reading": It seems to me that that why-retain-it argument could be made in respect to any article's "Further reading" section. And yet these sections do exist—for the same reasons as here. Nihil novi (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
My question was, are they useful (in terms of comprehensiveness), and if not, why are they there (that is, what are they adding)? Also, they are now used with the template citation, which is causing a big red ref error, since they aren't sources.

And, we still have a mixed citation style. The Notes are using inline citations, while everything else uses cite ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the "External links": Jan Bury's (is that your "Bauer"?) "The Enigma Code Breach" provides photos of French, Polish and Spanish personnel, drawn from various publications, which regrettably appear nowhere on Wikipedia. Tony Sale's "The Breaking of Enigma by the Polish Mathematicians" shows a diagram of the Polish cryptological bomb that was needlessly purged from Wikipedia a few years ago by an over-zealous copyright cop. "How Mathematicians Helped Win WWII", by the National Security Agency", includes a photo of "Adolf Hitler receiving the salute of German troops in Warsaw following their conquest of Poland", which actually shows him riding in his 6-wheel Mercedes before the Polish General Staff Building where the German Enigma had first been broken nearly 7 years earlier (!!); this poignant photo (taken from Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984), too, was purged—from the Wikipedia "Biuro Szyfrów" (Polish Cipher Bureau) article. "Enigma documents" provides reproductions of many source documents, including ones by Marian Rejewski. "Marian Rejewski and the First Break into Enigma", published this year (2015) by the American Mathematical Society, gives another view of Rejewski's mathematics, for those willing to challenge themselves. Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Bauer was already fixed in External links, and my other question was about "Further reading", not "External links" (you answered a different question-- please re-read the discussion above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I quote you from the discussion above: "I'm not convinced all of the External links belong..." What am I misunderstanding? Nihil novi (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
After that :) I asked: "Are the unused sources listed in Further reading useful, if so, why are they not used, if not, why are we retaining them?" Please see your post from 04:50 4 March and my response to that from 14:56 4 March. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in Laserbrain's Delist above, there are layers of problems with both prose and comprehensiveness everyone one looks in this article, and there are other concerns intimated by Piotr. The three Delists stand, and it doesn't appear that, after almost a month at FAR, this will be salvageable. The prose is rough, and one is left with questions in numerous places (indicated in two examples below with unaddressed inline comments). These are samples only:

  • Convoluted prose sample. On 21 November 1946, Rejewski, having been on 15 November discharged from the Polish Army in Britain, returned to Poland to be reunited with his wife, Irena Maria Rejewska (née Lewandowska, whom Rejewski had married on 20 June 1934) and their son Andrzej (Andrew, born 1936) and daughter Janina (Jeanne, born 1939, who would later follow in her father's footsteps to become a mathematician).
  • That is followed by an overlong quote, and ...
  • Prose and comprehensive issue combined ... in 1950 they demanded that he be fired from his employment !--why? please expand-- as an inline comment ... fired from his employment?
  • Repetitive and unclear prose. What little was published attracted little attention.
  • Would follow after 1974? Still, this was closer to the truth than many British and American accounts that would follow after 1974.
  • Another unaddressed inline comment: On 9 January 1942, Różycki, the youngest of the three mathematicians, died in the sinking of a French passenger ship as he was returning from a stint in Algeria to Cadix in southern France.< --why did the ship sink? how did it affect Rejewski? >

There are short choppy paragraphs throughout. The three Delists stand; the article has been improved, but it is not close to FA quality and it seems unlikely to make it there without a significant rewrite. I remain at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

About Różycki's death (from Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, p. 128):
"For security and personal safety, the Poles seldom participated in courier missions or the like. An exception was departures [from Cadix] for two- to three-month stints at the Château Couba [on the outskirts of Algiers]. One such expedition across the Mediterranean ended tragically. In circumstances that remain unclear to this day, the French ship Lamoricière, on which four Poles were returning from Algiers, suffered catastrophe on 9 January 1942, near the Balearic Islands. It is not clear whether, amid a raging storm, the ship struck a reef or one of the thousands of mines that the belligerents were laying. Killed in the Lamoricière catastrophe were Capt. Jan Graliński, Jerzy Różycki, and Piotr Smoleński.[...] Also lost was a French officer accompanying the Poles, Capt. François Lane."
How did Rejewski feel about the loss of Różycki? Nearly 38 years later, on 25 November 1979, he wrote Richard Woytak in a letter quoted in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), p. 59, and in Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, pp. 238–39:
"As a person, he was a very good friend, cheerful, sociable. He died on 9.I.1942 [9 January 1942] when, while returning from Algiers to France, the ship on which he was sailing, the Lamoricière, sank after hitting submerged reefs or perhaps [a] mine. He had married shortly before the war in Poland, and when he left Poland [in September 1939] he left behind his wife and a child of several months. His son is presently living in England...."
Nihil novi (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the "Marian Rejewski" "Back in Poland" section. I've re-edited it. Does anything there remain unclear?
Are there any other specific passages in the article that still require editing or sourcing?
Nihil novi (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the information about Różycki (above) in a note, I've done further editing, and I have added some information. Others have also contributed. Any further suggestions to improve the article would be appreciated. Nihil novi (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

My Delist stands; unfortunately, I don't think this article can be salvaged in the lifespan of a Featured article review, and an independent copyedit by an editor fluent in the topic would be needed to make the text comprehensible.

Your dedication to the topic is commendable, and your work has improved the article, but everywhere one's eyes falls, there are glaring prose and MOS issues. On the trivials, there are WP:PUNC, WP:ENDASH, and WP:EMDASH issues. There are wikilinking issues everywhere.

More significant is the need for a thorough rewrite and copyedit. The section "Enigma machine" is a convoluted and at times ungrammatical description of the machine even for those who understand what it is. Here is a sample sentence, found by simply scanning to the end of the article and reading the first sentence in a random paragraph:

  • Rejewski took satisfaction from his accomplishments in breaking the German Enigma cipher for nearly seven years (beginning in December 1932) prior to the outbreak of World War II and then into the war, in personal and teleprinter collaboration with Bletchley Park, at least until the 1940 fall of France.

    Here's another:

  • As it became clear that war was imminent and that Polish resources were insufficient to keep pace with the evolution of Enigma encryption (e.g., due to the prohibitive expense of an additional 54 bombs and due to the Poles' difficulty in producing in time the required 60 series of 26 "Zygalski sheets" each), the Polish General Staff and government decided to let their Western allies in on the secret.

    Another issue:

  • ... that one mathematics professor describes as "the theorem that won World War II."

    The reader should be told who that prof is ... and why does his/her opinion matter, anyway?

    These are only samples, not intended to be a comprehensive list. I do not believe this article can be salvaged without an independent copyedit by someone who is also a knowledgeable in the content area.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The identity of the mathematics professor, Cipher A. Deavours (one of the editors of the quarterly Cryptologia, on this occasion writing in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing), was already in the attached note; but I've put the information into the text itself, for those disinclined to read notes. Nihil novi (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added information about the Poles' Enigma-breaking techniques, especially to the section on "Rejewski's bomba and Zygalski's sheets", which should make the procedures and financial challenges clearer. Thanks for pointing out areas that can benefit from more attention. Nihil novi (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You have been very helpful in inspiring efforts to make the text clearer and more communicative.
If you could now point out a few instances of "ungrammatical" writing, I (or others) could try to improve the grammar—or demonstrate why the text in question is not ungrammatical.
Thanks again.
Nihil novi (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Could the @WP:FAR coordinators: please give some indication of what they are waiting for or expecting from this FAR, which has multiple Delist declarations more than a month old? As a random sample, can someone explain what "Naval code" refers to here, and examine the prose ... why is "by later report" there? An independent copyedit by a topic expert is still needed. Delist stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"In late October or early November 1932, while work on the Naval code was still underway, Rejewski was set to work, alone and in secret, on the output of the new standard German cipher machine, the Enigma I, which was coming into widespread use. While the Cipher Bureau had, by later report, succeeded in solving an earlier, plugboard-less Enigma, it had had no success with the Enigma I."
The "Naval code" was, of course, the German naval code referred to in the previous paragraph. In case this was unclear to any other reader, I have added the word "German" to the term "naval code".
The phrase "by later report" referred to A.P. Mahon's secret report, written a dozen years later in 1945 and cited in note 4, on The History of Hut Eight: 1939–1945. The expression "by later report" is obviously not indispensable, so I have deleted it.
Thank you. Are there any other passages which strike you as unclear or perhaps inelegant?
Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you locate a copyeditor knowledgeable in the content area to go through the entire article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that there is anything substantial that is incorrect in the text.
I suggest that you continue raising your concerns, which can then be clarified as above.
Another possible approach: Put a notice on cryptology-related pages, inviting reviews.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This article's prose is quite dense, fairly technical, relies heavily on extremely long footnotes, and definitely tends toward the verbose, so I understand why Sandy asked for a full copyedit. She's certainly not the only person who has pointed out prose issues during this FAR, so I think it's rather uncharitable to frame them as her concerns. There is a breaking point somewhere between "these 5 things need to be fixed" and "there are so many things that need to be fixed that a copyedit is needed", and on earlier read-throughs of the article I have to say I too felt the latter was necessary. However, given the many prose issues already pointed out and addressed, I've just re-read the article (for the umpteenth time) and I now feel that it is nearly there. Here are the issues I see at this point:

  • Tortured prose - This sentence is incomprehensibly long: "Rejewski used a mathematical theorem—that two permutations are conjugate if and only if they have the same cycle structure—that mathematics professor Cipher A. Deavours, co-editor of the quarterly Cryptologia—in a commentary to Rejewski's posthumously published 1981 paper, "How the Polish Mathematicians Deciphered the Enigma", in the Annals of the history of Computing—describes as "the theorem that won World War II."" I understand that the Deavours/Cryptologia details were added in response to a request above, but the sentence still needs some refining; we only need enough info about Deavours to understand why his comment is notable.
  • Italics and scare quotes - Usage needs to follow WP:MOS. Foreign language terms (bomba) should be in italics throughout. Code names (Ultra, Cadix, PC Bruno, Bolek, Pierre Ranaud) can be given in plain text, or italics, or scare quotes—but pick only one. Proper names, even foreign names, should be given in plain text, not in italics as has been done with Andrzej and Janina.
  • Endashes - "French-Polish-Spanish radio-intelligence unit" and "Polish-French-Spanish Cadix center"should use endashes between the nationalities per WP:ENDASH.
  • Emdashes - There are both unspaced emdashes and spaced emdashes; per WP:EMDASH one convention should be used consistently throughout.
  • Copyediting - Need to fix typos such as "cryptologiic" and [[Marian Rejewski#Recognistion)|posthumously]] (this is also a bit of an easter egg); repeated words such as "should have told him told him better"; repetition such as "Cipher Bureau (Biuro Szyfrów)" and "Biuro Szyfrów (Cipher Bureau)" inside the same section as well as the Grand Cross mentioned in the Back in Poland section and again in Recognition; confusing lack of chronological order such as in Back in Poland where we have 1946 1934 1946 1947–1958 1967 1969 1939 1944 1942 etc, and also "a few years before his death" and "a year and a half before his death" and "posthumously" before his death itself is even mentioned.
  • Citations - A couple of citations are missing accessdates; another is missing both author and publisher information.
  • Quotation - I have a couple of issues with the Woytak quotation in the Notes section. First, I honestly cannot parse it through the italics, single and double quotes, ellipses, brackets, etc. Second, the quote is something like 350 words long, which (per WP:COPYQUOTE) puts it within the realm of a possible copyright infringement. Summarizing it in our own words would avoid that issue and hopefully make it easier to understand.

I really appreciate when editors pitch in to save an article at FAR. It's clear that this article is vastly improved, but there is a bit more to be done. Maralia (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia, for pitching in ; perhaps you have the energy to continue, but my feeling was that the article was desperately in need of new eyes to fix the numerous issues. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Maralia, thanks for your insightful fresh look at the text.
I've revised several of the bigger items cited.
Perhaps someone could address punctuation errors and typos that I may not spot.
Are there any other passages that would benefit from further attention?
Thanks for the very constructive critique!
Nihil novi (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the chronology of the Rejewski family vicissitudes, recounted in the "Back in Poland" section, is a little chaotic, but partly that reflects the chaos of wartime events in their lives.
I'm not sure how to re-chronologize the respective events without disrupting the flow of narrative in the article's other sections. Nihil novi (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this another pass after Laser has been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

So, I spent about 2 hours last night reading through this again and making edits. I ended up discarding everything I did before saving. I've never been quite so uncomfortable editing an article, and I can't put my finger on why. It may be because I don't really understand the narrative, and the subject matter is so far outside my wheelhouse as to be comical. --Laser brain (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditto. I can think of several editors who could help, but they are all departed. We need to find someone who can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Can you maybe look through it? We need a once-over from someone who is in at least a similar domain so we have less of a chance of inadvertently making incorrect changes. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I did a read through this evening, more for the general sense of the article than copyediting, but I'm not really sure what you're looking for. It made sense both as a narrative and in its more technical details to me, and seemed generally well written, but I got the feeling that big chunks of the article were really a story of the Polish war cryptography effort in general, and not particularly about Rejewski. For instance, he is not even mentioned from the second half of the "Rejewski's bomba" section until "In France and Britain", two section headings down. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
David, thank you for your thoughtful reading of the article.
A slight correction: Rejewski does appear in the intervening "Allies informed" section, if not by name: At the Warsaw Polish–British–French intelligence meeting on 25 July 1939, 5 weeks before the outbreak of World War II, "The Polish hosts included Stefan Mayer, Gwido Langer, Maksymilian Ciężki, and the three cryptologists [ Marian Rejewski, Henryk Zygalski, and Jerzy Różycki]."
Nihil novi (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
As a math undergrad, engineering grad, the math doesn't trouble me; it's the prose. I was hoping Laser could address the prose, but he was troubled by the math. In going to have a look at where things stand, I find this as the second sentence in the article:
  • The cryptologic successes of Rejewski and his colleagues Jerzy Różycki and Henryk Zygalski, over six and a half years later, jump-started British reading of Enigma in the Second World War; the intelligence so gained, code-named Ultra, contributed, perhaps decisively, to the defeat of Germany.
This sort of overly convoluted prose is everywhere. What is wrong with, for example:
  • More than six years later, the cryptologic successes of Rejewski and colleagues Jerzy Różycki and Henryk Zygalski jump-started British reading of Enigma in the Second World War. The intelligence gained was code-named Ultra and contributed, perhaps decisively, to the defeat of Germany.
or something like that. I can see why it was hard for Laser to work on the prose, not only because it is technical, but because it is now so convoluted, and that is why I keep saying we need a copyeditor who is familiar with the content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I've revised the lead, incorporating your suggestions and making some additional changes. I think it does read better now. Nihil novi (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, heck. This has been dragging on too long, and no one has appeared to help copyedit. I am not the most elegant copyeditor; in fact I don't think I'm even a good copyeditor, but someone has to try. I am busy today, but later this evening or tomorrow I will put the article in use and do what I can. Once I'm finished, I won't be offended it the whole shebang is reverted, since I'm not that good at ceing, and I hope others will carefully check my edits for unintended changes in meaning. Just please don't start editing until I've removed the inuse, 'cuz I hate edit conflicts ! Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Tough going-- it is often difficult to tell what is intended by the content that is there, and there is often extraneous detail. I am stopping here for feedack on how I'm doing, so I don't get too far in and found out I made a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what this sentence means:

  • In late October or early November 1932, while work on the German naval code was still underway, ...

Work on deciphering the German naval code? by whom? etc ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you mind if I interpolate some comments? That will keep my comments next to your comments and questions.
The first job given to the 3 mathematician-cryptologists after they were hired as civilian employees of the Polish General Staff's Cipher Bureau was to unmask a German naval code.
The word "code" has in recent years been bandied about so loosely that, in the public arena, it has become little more than a buzzword. One needs to have a clear grasp of the difference between a cipher and a code. A cipher scrambles the original letters of the plaintext, substituting other letters for the original ones; depending on the cipher system, the same original letter may be represented at various points by many another letter. A code, by contrast, replaces the original word by an artificially made-up word; Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, p. 11, gives an example: "Even half a century later, Marian Rejewski remembered that [in the German naval code] YOPY meant 'when,' YWIN—'where,' BAUG—'and,' and KEZL—'cancel the final letter.'"
Codes come in codebooks. Since such books would be inconvenient to lug around a battlefield, they are generally reserved for use in embassies and on naval vessels, which provide a steady platform. Hence the German naval code.
One does not "decipher" a code; one decodes it, if one is the encoded message's intended recipient. If one is an interloper, one decrypts it (the same holds for enciphered messages: the legitimate recipient deciphers them; an interloper decrypts them).
As Rejewski says (Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, p. 232), "[A] characteristic feature of a code is that it is never really completely solved. You just... keep manipulating the material... and make guesses... you have to figure out what this [code] group could mean.... But when the greater part [of the German naval code] had been solved... it was somewhere around the end of October, maybe the beginning of November [1932]—my boss [Maksymilian] Ciężki [asked me to work separately, two hours a day, on the German Enigma cipher, without telling Róžycki or Zygalski]."
Nihil novi (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, all of that helps explain, at least, why this article is so confusing to the average person. So, there is way too much text in explanatory footnotes, and we didn't have a link to cipher in the text, so I added one. At any rate, many iterations ago, I deleted the clause "while work on the German naval code was still underway" because it was only going to confuse average readers like me, and didn't really add anything to the story. Is that OK? Still working through these. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be solvable ?

  • He would later comment in 1980 that it was still not known whether such a set of six equations was soluble without further data.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The two words are used interchangeably. My Webster's dictionary defines "soluble": "1. that can be dissolved... 2. capable of being solved or explained"; and "solvable": "1. that can be solved, as a problem. 2. that can be dissolved."
Nihil novi (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
But why should we use a word less familiar to our readers, when we already have a densely technical article? Do you care if I switch it to "solvable"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Either word is all right, so long as we're not altering a direct quotation. Nihil novi (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We need to know who says, in what source, that he pioneered this ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

David Kahn writes, in his book Seizing the Enigma: The Race to Break the German U-Boat Codes, 1939–1943, 1991, p. 64: "At this point, Rejewski's analysis branched into a path that differed fundamentally from all methods hitherto used in cryptanalytic attacks. In the past, cryptanalysts had depended upon statistics. Which letter was the most frequent? Which of several possible plaintexts was the most likely? Even the only known previous solution of a rotor machine, the dazzling 1924 success of American William F. Friedman in reconstructing the wiring of Edward Hebern's five-rotor machine, used a probabilistic and lower-algebraic approach. But Rejewski, for the first time in the history of cryptanalysis, utilized a higher-algebraic attack. He applied one of the first theorems taught in the theory of groups. [...] Group theory thus told Rejewski that his cycles depended only on the rotor setting and not on the plugboard encipherment. It told him, in other words, that the plugboard, in which the Germans placed great trust as enhancing the machine's security, could be ignored in at least part of the cryptanalysis." Kahn describes as well the earlier and later phases of Rejewski's work on Enigma, relying on Rejewski's writings on the subject.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, that's good stuff. So, I attributed the opinion to Kahn, and added a placeholder citation,[18] but I don't know how to deal with this referencing sytem, so could you please fix that citation ... I find that there is too much use of footnotes, but I think that entire quote could be effective here, as a means of keeping the higher-level math out of the text, but making it available for those who appreciate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This sentence leaves us hanging; what happened?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

In the lead we say he first broke his silence in 1967. But in the Back in Poland section, we don't make that clear at all. We say he retired in 67, had done some writing earlier, got curious, and then we jump forward to 73 and 74. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No mystery here at all. Rejewski wrote his first paper on Enigma in Uzès, France, in 1942 (certainly not for publication). Over the years, he could hardly help wondering what Alastair Denniston, Alfred Dillwyn Knox, and Alan Turing—all of whom he had known—had done with his Enigma work. Rejewski disclosed his secret work, in Warsaw, in 1967, selling his Memoirs of My Work in the Cipher Bureau of Section II of the [Polish] General Staff, 1932–1945 to the Military Historical Institute. Władysław Kozaczuk, associated with the Institute, published the secret in a 1967 book, several years before French General Gustave Bertrand published his Enigma in 1973 and Winterbotham published The Ultra Secret in 1974.
Nihil novi (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Excellent, but that was not in the article. I made an attempt at clarification here, and in the lead, but you may need to correct it, and it needs citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Still, incomplete citations ... publisher? Author?

  • Untold Story of Enigma Code-Breaker, 5 July 2005, archived from the original on 18 November 2005, retrieved 9 January 2006

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Reuvers, Paul; Simons, Marc (2010), Enigma Cipher Machine, retrieved 22 July 2010 
  2. ^ Welchman 1997, p. 3
  3. ^ Calvocoressi 2001, p. 66
  4. ^ Winterbotham 2000, pp. 16–17
  5. ^ Kahn 1991, p. 974
  6. ^ Wilcox 2001, p. 5
  7. ^ Hodges 1983, p. 170
  8. ^ Polak 2005, p. 78

Nihil, if you are satisfied with my work so far, I will keep going once you've resolved everything above. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a need to either understand or remove a lot of extraneous information. As an example here:

  • The course was conducted off-campus at a military facility[10] and, as Rejewski would discover in France in 1939 during World War II, "was entirely and literally based" on French General Marcel Givièrge's 1925 book, Cours de cryptographie (Crytography Course).

Why do we care that the course was conducted off-campus? And why do we care that he later discovered what it was based on? There is no further mention of this in the article (that I've found so far), so the reader has no idea why this information is given. There is stuff like this everywhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


  • In September 1939, after the Invasion of Poland, Rejewski and his fellow Cipher Bureau workers were evacuated from Poland, crossing the border into Romania on 17 September. Rejewski, Zygalski and Różycki avoided internment in a refugee camp and made their way to Bucharest, where they contacted the British embassy.

"Were evacuated" implies someone helped (as opposed to "escaped"); reader is left clueless why we use "were evacuated". What's the back story? And how did they avoid internment, when so many others didn't? There seems to be a missing story here, otherwise, why are we mentioning this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

On 5 September 1939 the Cipher Bureau began preparations to evacuate key personnel and equipment. Soon a special evacuation train, the Echelon F, transported them eastward, then south. By the time the Cipher Bureau was ordered to cross the border into allied Romania on 17 September, they were down to a single truck. It was confiscated at the border by a Romanian officer, who separated the military from the civilian personnel. Taking advantage of the confusion, the three mathematicians ignored the Romanian's instructions. They anticipated that in an internment camp they might be identified by the Romanian security police, in which the German Abwehr and S.D. had informers. The mathematicians went to the nearest railroad station, exchanged money, bought tickets, and boarded the first train headed south. After a dozen or so hours, they reached Bucharest, at the other end of Romania. There they went to the British embassy. (The story continues in the article's text.) Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, pp. 70–72. Nihil novi (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Nihil, with this series of edits, you altered the article citation style and introduced citation formatting errors and red harv ref errors (endash, and the other book citations use short form with links). I cannot address those: I do not use this citation system (and detest it because it is so hard to work with). There are still multiple issues in the citations, with some books using short form, others not.[19] I'll try to resume copyediting this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)